My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 09/22/99
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
PC 09/22/99
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:07:24 PM
Creation date
10/24/2001 5:28:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/22/1999
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 09/22/99
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
Resolution No. PC-99-67 and ~58 were entered and adopted as motioned. <br /> <br />Chairperson Roberts announced a break at 9:20 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:35 p.m. <br /> <br />Work Study Session for PUD-99-04, Summerhill Homes <br />Application for Planned Unit Development development plan approval for a 79 single- <br />family detached home development with lots ranging in size from 8,000_+ square feet to <br />over one acre in size on the approximately 158-acre Spotorno Ranch site located in the <br />Happy Valley Specific Plan area. Zoning for the property is Unincorporated. <br /> <br />Chairperson Roberts advised that the format for the work session would be to hear a report from staff <br />and conduct a public hearing on the application. <br /> <br />Mr. Plucker presented background information regarding the proposed application, with an overview of <br />the proposed location of lots on the parcel, the design of the homes, the circulation system, and grading <br />aspects. He stated that the purpose of the workshop is to provide an opportunity for the Planning <br />Commission to become familiar with the application, ask questions about the project, and provide <br />feedback to staff with regard to some issues identified by staff. He noted that this is also an opportunity <br />to introduce the project to the community and provide for an opportunity to express comments and ask <br />questions. He stated that the staff report presents information on the Happy Valley Specific Plan and <br />how it has provided the general development framework for this property, it also critiques design <br />elements and development standards against what is being proposed. Mr. Plucker noted that staff has <br />attempted to identify general issues that appear may warrant some additional discussion prior to the <br />Planning Commission's action on the final proposal. He noted that the architectural designs were <br />included in the materials distributed to the Commission, but details regarding the tree survey and <br />biological report information have not been included. He commented that staff has reviewed the house <br />plans and are fairly pleased with them. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED <br /> <br />Craig Champion, 777 California Avenue, Palo Alto, Development Manager for Summerhill Homes, <br />stated that while the staff report focuses on planning and setback considerations, the applicant's <br />concerns are on a broader perspective. He provided background on the Happy Valley Specific Plan, <br />noting that the plan allowed for 102 units on this property. He noted that over time there has been a <br />steady erosion of the density for this project as a result of topography, FAR's and seismic issues to 79 <br />units. He commented that that the major thing driving this project is the bypass road that will go <br />through the property and the grading is needed substantially because of the bypass road. He described <br />the problems related to the grading and how this impacts the project with regard to views and the <br />visibility of new homes. He referred to the view study exhibits, noting that they would attempt to <br />mitigate concerns with single-story homes and install a landscape screen. He stated that they are <br />concerned that existing problems with the proposal will result in further erosion of the density of the <br />project, and the feasibility of continuing with the project. He noted that he has attempted to work with <br />the neighbors on Alisal Street, and a lot of attention has been given to their concerns, and while they do <br />not want more density in that area, he does not know where else it could be located. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 13 September 22, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.