My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 01/25/72
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1970-1979
>
1972
>
PC 01/25/72
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2017 11:46:36 AM
Creation date
4/30/2007 4:29:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/25/1972
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 01/25/72
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
4y~,~,sA~vTOy <br />CITY of PLEASANTON <br />~~ •'i. <br />.~ <br />~~° Planning Commission <br />M {D ~ <br />MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />DGte : January 25, 1972 <br />Time : 7100 PM <br />PIG C8; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />Mr. Joseph Madden, owner of two acres of lan <br />on Vineyard Avenue spoke next. He was Willi <br />to go along with any request staff has as fa <br />as the timing for building on the property, <br />but had objections regarding the possible <br />change in zoning which this Study District <br />might bring about. He also referred to an <br />assessment district for Vine Street, which <br />would delay development of his parcel for <br />one year. With this Study District, there <br />is a possibility of a two-year delay. He <br />also touched on the traffic problems. <br />City Attorney, Bill Hirst, joined the meeti <br />at 7:50 PM. <br />Vice Chairman Pons asked whether the agree- <br />ment between the City and Mission Park In- <br />vestment Co. is binding. Mr. Hirst indicate <br />that there was such a n agreement with two or <br />three property owners, in fact. Also, so <br />long as development is conducted consistent <br />with the PUD permit, which was gra nted sever <br />years ago, the agreement is valid, but in hi <br />view, he felt that the development in a Stud <br />District for the purpose of reviewing land <br />uses. Mr. Herman Trutner, attorney for the <br />property owners, opposed this view. Discuss <br />followed. <br />The Vice Chairman then indicated that the <br />full Commission should be present to conside <br />a situation of this magnitude and that this <br />matter should be continued to March 14, 1972 <br />This would also permit the two absent <br />commissioners opportunity to read up on the <br />minutes of the meeting of January 25th and <br />also allow those individuals who did not get <br />an opportunity to sta to their case, to do so <br />at that hearing. <br />The Public Hearing was then continued to <br />March 14, 1972,to be heard by the full <br />Commission. <br />FIVE MINUTE BREAK <br />- 5 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.