My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-87- 87
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
PC-87- 87
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/18/2008 10:35:28 AM
Creation date
3/28/2008 9:05:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
7/22/1987
DOCUMENT NO
PC-87- 87
DOCUMENT NAME
PUD-87-20
NOTES
B-W CONTRUCTION AND FIRST INTERSTATE BANK
NOTES 2
APPLIED TO SUBDIVIDE SITE INTO 6 PARCELS FOR SINGLE FAMILEY RESIDENTIAL USE
NOTES 3
4350 ROSEWOOD DR
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PLEASANTON <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br />RESOLUTION NO. PC-87-87 <br />RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE APPLICAITON OF <br />B-W CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AS FILED UNDER CASE PUD-87-20 <br />WHEREAS, B-W Construction Company and First Interstate Bank have <br />applied for development plan approval to construct a <br />28-unit residential townhouse complex, to be located on <br />an approximately 2.4 acre site at 553 St. John Street; <br />and <br />WHEREAS, zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit <br />Development) - High Density Residential District; and <br />WHEREAS, at its duly noticed public hearing of July 22, 1987, the <br />Planning Commission recommended approval of a proposed <br />negative declaration prepared for for Case PUD-87-20 <br />after considering all public testimony, relevant <br />exhibits and recommendations of the City staff <br />concerning this application; and <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: <br />1. Best Interest of the Public Health, Safety and <br />Welfare -- The project is compatible with the <br />development surrounding it. The development plan, <br />in particular, would result in the redevelopment of <br />a site not currently being utilized following the <br />departure of the previous use. <br />2. Consistency with the General Plan -- The project <br />density and relationship to policies are consistent <br />with those of the General Plan. <br />3. Compatibility with Previously Developed Properties <br />and Natural Topographic Features -- Project is <br />consistent with other residential uses developed in <br />the area where a minimal of grading is required due <br />to the relatively flat terrain of the site. <br />4. Proposed Grading Practices -- The flat site would <br />be minimally graded to accommodate building pad <br />areas. City ordinances require erosion control. <br />5. Project Complements Natural Terrain -- Minimal <br />grading is required to install improvements and pad <br />grading for building areas should entail minimal <br />grading. <br />- 1 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.