My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 01/13/99
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
PC 01/13/99
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:04:39 PM
Creation date
10/24/2001 4:47:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/13/1999
DOCUMENT NAME
pc 01/13/99
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
Landscaping: leave as is, except the use of mature, planter box trees is encouraged. <br /> <br />Colors should be darker earth-tone. Staff should try to come up with a color range. <br />Commissioner Cooper noted he dissented from the vote and he would like to see a wider <br />range of acceptable colors, less restrictions, if possible, within a reasonable relaxation of <br />restrictions. <br /> <br />All other requirements or regulations should remain as is. <br /> <br />The Commission requested that subdivision design 18.78.080, Section A, Open Space between <br />lot clusters; B, Prohibition on Foreridge Development; and C, Access/Frontage Improvements, <br />be left as is. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson stated that staff will amend the West Foothill Road Corridor Overlay District <br />Standards as requested by the Commission and notification will be sent to any residences within <br />1,000 feet. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kameny inquired as to the status of having a "keep clear" designation at the <br />intersection of May and Spring Streets. Mr. Higdon responded that staff has recommended that <br />intersection be kept as is, and that staff will provide a response to Commissioner Kameny's <br />request. <br /> <br />Commissioner Roberts requested that the Commission reconsider PUD-98-06, application of <br />Braddock and Logan, from the December 9, 1998 meeting, due to her voting in favor of denying <br />the application. She stated her intent was not for a specific plan to be conducted for the Rose <br />Avenue area and that was not the reason she voted to deny the PUD. She would like the <br />Commission to reconsider the PUD as well as the question of doing a Specific Plan for the area. <br />Mr. Iserson noted that this item is currently scheduled for appeal before the City Council on <br />January 19, 1999, but that it would likely be rescheduled for the February 16 Council Meeting. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Maas, to reconsider <br />PUD-98-06, the Braddock and Logan application. <br /> <br />ROLLCALLVOTE <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br />Commissioners Kameny, Maas, and Roberts. <br />Commissioner Cooper <br />Commissioner Sullivan <br />Chairperson Kumaran <br /> <br />The motion carries on a 4-1 vote. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 January 13, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.