My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
12/10/69
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1960-1969
>
1969
>
12/10/69
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/3/2017 9:41:45 AM
Creation date
7/9/2007 4:27:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
12/10/1969
DOCUMENT NAME
12/10/69
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
4`'~,1,gANT0y <br />'` <br />CITY of PLEASANTON <br />Planning Commission <br />MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING. r~ 1°~ <br />Date : December 10, 1969 <br />Time : s:os PM <br />PIOCe: Pleasanton Justice Court <br />REFRRRAL FROM CITY Mr, Castro advised the Planning Commission Resolution: <br />COUNCIL <br />Sec <br />2 <br />109 that the reason for this being referred back <br />f Seconded: <br />. <br />. <br />, <br />Res <br />No <br />975 rom the City Council was due to a question <br />b Ayes: <br />. <br />. <br />, <br />Approved eing raised by several Councilmen in regard Noe a: <br />, to what protection would be applied to the Absent: <br /> front yard setback which more or less Lies Abstain: <br /> between the end of the front yard setback li e <br /> and the front portion of the residence. <br />Mr. Castro advised the Commission that from <br />his point of view, this particular area <br />would not necessarily present problems that <br />were previously discussed with the Commisaio <br />although it is a possible area where storage <br />could occur and it was the Council's desire <br />that some screening device be added to the <br />ordinance amendment as protection in the <br />future. <br />Mr. Castro stated there was no objection <br />on his part in amending the ordinance to <br />encompass this additional wording and that <br />he would recommend the adoption of said <br />amendment subject to the proper terminology <br />being worked out by the City Attorney. <br />In further reviewing the proposal as recomm- <br />ended by City Council, the Commission fouaH <br />no objection and a resolution was entered <br />and passed recommending that Sec. 2.109 be <br />amended to include some form of a screening <br />device for that portion of the front yard <br />setback, said screening to be subject to the <br />approval of the Design Review Board. <br />------------------------- <br />The Commissioners also discussed the amend- <br />ment passed oa Sec. 2.112(e), merely for <br />clarification purposes. <br />Chairman Carrigan instructed the Planning <br />Director to set up a joint meeting with <br />Council and Commission to study diobile home <br />parks within Pleasanton. <br />-------------------------- <br />x <br />x~x <br />- 10 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.