My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN030392
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN030392
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:03 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 10:04:50 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.
/
36
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
123 <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler pointed out that the EIR did not address the horse <br />facility although it was not suggested by the applicant. He <br />referred to the staff report and noted that the Commission denied <br />the 62 units. He asked staff what the Planning Commission would <br />approve. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that the Planning Commission recommended <br />approval of a 54 unit project. The project before Council is 54 <br />units plus one existing house (55 total). The Planning Commission <br />felt that the abundance of the open space around the project was <br />sufficient to go beyond the 51 units. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if the Planning Commission provided direction <br />where the units should be located. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said that the Commission did not have a plan that is <br />felt comfortable recommending approval. The Commission was willing <br />to make a concession on the set-back on the units to 120-135 feet. <br />The remaining modifications shown on the plan comply with what the <br />Planning Commission indicated it would approve. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr indicated that the plan considered by the Commission <br />had many conditions that do not relate to the new plan. She said <br />that Council would be taking a lot of time to read through them and <br />adjust them to the new plan unless the new conditions already had <br />been identified. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift responded that the conditions have been identified. <br />He said that Council could refer this to the Commission to draft <br />appropriate conditions as would relate to this new plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that he was disappointed that the Planning <br />Commission decided to make a compromise without knowing what was <br />planned. He referred to staff recommendation #4 and felt that it <br />was appropriate to refer this to the Planning Commission, and then <br />have it brought back to Council by April 7. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if the plan could be conditioned so that all <br />improvements would be completed before any lots could be released <br />for sale. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift answered yes. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if it was possible that this project could be <br />conditioned to pay for the improvements for the Golden Eagle Farms <br />project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated that there had been some discussions <br />between City staff, Mr. Currin and the bankruptcy attorney about a <br />condition of approval for this project. It was suggested that if <br />all public improvements were not completed in the Golden Eagle <br /> <br />3/3/92 <br /> 21 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.