My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-87- 82a
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
PC-87- 82a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/18/2008 10:35:27 AM
Creation date
3/28/2008 9:19:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
7/22/1987
DOCUMENT NO
PC-87- 82a
DOCUMENT NAME
PUD-87-18
NOTES
GOOCH/NEW LIFE FELLOWSHIP CHURCH
NOTES 2
APPLIED TO SUBDIVIDE SITE INTO 80 PARCELS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
NOTES 3
AREA BOUNDED BY EILENE DR, RHEEM DR, OAKLAND AVE
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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-87-82a <br />RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CASE PUD-87-18, <br />GOOCH/NEW LIFE FELLOWSHIP CHURCH <br />WHEREAS, Ken Gooch and Associates and New Life Fellowship Church <br />have applied for Planned Unit Development rezoning and <br />development plan approval for a ten-unit single-family <br />residential development to be located on an <br />approximately 1 acre site located on the south side of <br />Valley Trails Drive opposite its southerly intersection <br />with National Park Road; and <br />WHEREAS, zoning for the property is RM-1500 (Multi-family <br />Residential) District; and <br />WHEREAS, at their duly noticed public hearing of July 22, 1987, <br />the Planning Commission recommended approval of the <br />negative declaration prepared for this case after <br />considering all public testimony, relevant exhibits and <br />recommendations of the City staff; and <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings: <br />Best Interest of the Public Health Safety and <br />Welfare -- The projects is consistent with the <br />development surrounding it. The development plan <br />would provide for' infill development on a site <br />currently vacant and not adequately maintained and <br />would result in an improved appearance for the <br />residential neighborhood; <br />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 />-- Project is consistent with the single-family <br />homes developed in the area. <br />4. Proposed Grading Practices -- The flat site would <br />be minimally graded to accommodate the cul-de-sac. <br />Grading for pads on the lots should be minimal. <br />City ordinances require erosion control; <br />5. Project Complements Natural Terrain -- Minimal <br />grading is required to install the proposed <br />cul-de-sac and pad grading for lots should entail <br />minimal grading; and <br />- 1 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.