My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 08/14/68
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1960-1969
>
1968
>
PC 08/14/68
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2013 3:20:43 PM
Creation date
7/5/2007 9:36:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/14/1968
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 08/14/68
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
2. That in lieu of Condition 2 shown on the <br />staff report, regarding relocation of existing <br />parking lot, other arrangements for parking <br />be made with the approval of the Planning <br />Director <br />f. Z-68-11. Tract 3004 <br />Application of D 6 V Builders to offer optional use of asphalt shingle <br />and/or shake roof for subdivision known as Valley Trails in the City of <br />Pleasanton. <br />Chairman Antonini opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Castro read the staff <br />report to the Planning Commission. The City Attorney stated that this matter <br />presented two ptoblema: 1) Aesthetics and 2) Procedure. He indicated that <br />the courts have not yet gone so far as to state that the Planning Commission <br />could impose zoning regulations purely for aesthetic purposes. He further <br />indicated, however, that if considerations other than, or in addition to <br />aesthetics alone, were involved, or if there was enough doubt concerning the <br />invalidity of such regulations, this would warrant the Planning Commission's <br />exercise of its power. The City Attorney indicated that both the provisions <br />relating to the Planned Unit Development and to the processing of an <br />application for a zoning permit were susceptible of the construction that <br />the City Council in adopting said ordinance intended that the Planning <br />Commission be invested with the authority to impose such conditions as are <br />herein contemplated. <br />This development was submitted under the Planned Unit Development section, <br />and as such, had considerable flexibility. Mr. Frost gave a lengthy talk <br />on his views and demonstrated samples of the shingles he planned to offer <br />the home buyer, plus diagrams of the homes, the entire subdivision, etc. <br />The Commissioners questioned Mr. Frost on prices of homes, eligibility <br />requirements of buyer, etc. There being no further questions, Chairman <br />Antonini made the motion, seconded by Co®iasioner Carrigan, and carried, <br />that the Public Hearing be closed. UPON MOTION OF CHAIRMAN ANTONINI, <br />SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ARNOLD, THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED <br />BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. <br />RESOLUTION NO. 806 <br />WHEREAS, application of D & V Builders to offer optional <br />use of asphalt shingle and/or shake roof for <br />subdivision known as Valley Trails in the City <br />of Pleasanton, has come before this Commission, <br />WHEREAS, D & V Builders applied pursuant to Ordinance <br />No. 358, for Planned Unit Development treatment <br />by the Planning Commission; and <br />WHEREAS, in conjunction therewith D & V Builders applied <br />for a zoning permit pursuant to Ordinance No.304 <br />in order to implement development plans; <br />WHEREAS, said application for a zoning permit was heax3 <br />at Public Hearing by the Planning Commission <br />at its meeting of August 14, 1968, and <br />WHEREAS, evidence, both oral and documentary, was present- <br />ed by applicant and considered by the Planning <br />Commission, <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that shake roofs, <br />being more architecturally and aesthetically <br />pleasing tended to attract new residents to the <br />community and thus make place for appropriate <br />types of industry, <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found, that shake roofs <br />tended to be more desirable archltecturally <br />than asphalt roofs, and that shake roofs were <br />desirable in order to preserve the harmony and <br />consistency between applicant's proposed <br />development and other existing developments <br />in the immediate area. <br />- 6 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.