Laserfiche WebLink
13.MATTERS FOE <br />INFORMATION OF COMMISSION <br />a. Review of the P.U.D. procedures by City Attorney and Planning Director as noted <br />under Zoning Ordinance No. 520 <br />The City Attorney went into detail and explained the procedures regarding this <br />matter. All that would be needed would be, if the Commissioners concurred with <br />the memorandum as presented by him, they could get for Public Healing the <br />suggested amendments and he would prepare the language for each amendment. <br />It was Mr. ftirst's feeling that a uniform procedure should be adopted by the <br />Commission for the processing of all P.U.D. applications. <br />Upon motion of Vice Chairman Carrigan, seconded by Commissioner Antonini, and <br />carried, the following resolution was offered: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 886 <br />WAEREAS, the Planning Commission hea reviewed the <br />suggested amendments by the City Attorney, <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BB IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission <br />hereby adopts Resolution of Intention <br />No. 886 for the purpose of holding a Public <br />Hearing to amend Article 13. PUD Planned <br />Unit Development. <br />PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE Planning Commission of the City of <br />Pleasanton on the 9th day of April, 1969, <br />by the following vote: <br />Ayes: Commissioner Antonini <br />Commissioner Arnold <br />Commissioner Gibbs <br />Vice Chairman Carrigan <br />Noes: <br />Absent: Chairman Plato <br />Attest: Secretary Castro <br />b. Summary by the Planning Director regarding information received relative to the <br />Planning Director Castro requested a continuance of this item pending a decision <br />by City Council when they meet on April 14, 1969. The Commissioners concurred. <br />It was clarified that the Board of Supervisors will hear this matter on April 24, <br />1969. <br />c. Review of the codes, covenants and restrictions governing the common green areas <br />as orooosed by Georfte Oakes for the Fairlands development by the Citv Attorney <br />The City Attorney had reviewed the material as submitted by Mr. Oakes. He felt. <br />that they were quite concise and equitable. There were two methods that could <br />be used: <br />1. The developer would poet a bond for a period of three to four years, thereby <br />assuring the maintenance of the common green areas. This would enable the <br />program to get off the ground. <br />2. The developer would include the City as a party to the agreement with respect <br />to the enforcement of the means. <br />- 6 - <br />