My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN020492
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN020492
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:03 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 10:01:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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).
View images
View plain text
60 <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler indicated the appeal of this item applied to the <br /> variance., not the traffic and parking issues. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bianchi replied she was not notified of any meetings held <br /> to discuss this project; therefore, she did not have the <br /> opportunity to appeal the design. She did receive a notice for the <br /> variance of the project and was appealing it. She submitted a <br /> petition of 218 signatures appealing this matter. <br /> <br /> Birdie Bianchi, 4329 Railroad Avenue, supported the appeal and <br /> expressed her concern with the traffic and parking problem. <br /> <br /> Pat Mann, 129 Ray Street, agreed that the location for this <br /> use was unsafe because of the parking and traffic on First Street. <br /> She felt that better locations could be found for this use. She <br /> added that she did not receive a notice regarding the design of <br /> this project. <br /> <br /> Merton Murray, 470 Mavis Drive, owner of property on Ray <br /> Street, referred to Condition No. 11 and asked if the condition was <br /> recorded as an easement on the Baptist Church property. Me <br /> indicated that he was not given notice of the design of this <br /> property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that the Agreement, if recorded, would be an <br /> encumbrance against the affected properties. <br /> <br /> Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, spoke in opposition to the <br /> appeal. He stated that only the variances should be open for <br /> discussion. He pointed out that the parking for this project on <br /> site exceeded the City standards for mortuaries by 6 parking <br /> spaces. Moreover, the parking condition listed in the staff report <br /> did not accurately reflect the modifications that were discussed at <br /> the Design Review Board meeting. He concluded that the mortuary <br /> did not plan on crossing First Street enroute to Livermore for <br /> funeral processions. Instead, funeral processions would be making <br /> three right turns leaving the mortuary property. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked how often the mortuary would need to use <br /> the church property for parking. <br /> <br /> Mr. MacDonald answered it would be very seldom, possibly once <br /> a year. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler asked staff to clarify the wording of Condition 11. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift explained that the wording in Condition 11 was not <br /> to indicate that the agreement would be recorded, but only that <br /> best efforts would be required. <br /> <br /> 2/4/92 <br /> 6 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.