My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 041509
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
PC 041509
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:40:00 PM
Creation date
9/23/2009 8:44:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/15/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
Commissioner Pearce asked staff what kind of timeframe they were looking at. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that it would depend on the exhibits the Commission requests as <br />well as the applicant’s timeline and ability to prepare the exhibits. <br />Commissioner Blank stated that he would like to see viewscapes to help the <br />Commission see what the homes would look like from the various vantage points, <br />including vegetation, greenery, perspective, elevation, and adjacent developments. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that it would be very helpful for staff to understand precisely what it <br />is about the project that the Commission feels merits a General Plan and Specific <br />Plan amendment. He noted that based on the comments made, he believed that the <br />Commission’s line of thinking is that a slightly more dense development adjacent to <br />the project is appropriate. <br />Commissioners Olson indicated that the Commission has a divided opinion on what <br />is appropriate. <br />Commissioner O’Connor stated that his opinion is that he does not believe the City <br />should amend the General Plan or Specific Plan to incorporate three additional units. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that if the Commission had other reasons to support a General <br />Plan Amendment, it would be helpful to hear those at this time. <br />Commissioner Blank stated that he needed to see what the project would look like. <br />He noted that there are better locations in the City for one-story versus two-story <br />homes. He suggested seeing what the plan looks like with four or five houses <br />because the Commission may find that there is no visible difference from having <br />three houses as seen from any perspective; or having five homes may look <br />absolutely terrible. <br />Commissioner Narum stated that she believes that when the HVSP was approved, <br />this lot got lost in the shuffle. She stated that she did not believe people would <br />th <br />willingly agree to have barns, pigs, chickens, and other animals up against the 15 <br />th <br />and 16 fairways. She indicated that she just had people come in from the East <br />Coast to play golf and commented that those fairways were not as attractive as other <br />parts of the course. She added that this is the reason why she is in favor of doing <br />something there because she feels it will improve the experience on the golf course. <br />She stated that she thinks something can be done that fits within the general <br />comments of the HVSP and added that she would like to see a lot taken out to <br />create a little open space. <br />Commissioner O’Connor stated that if the Commission is going to request the <br />applicant to return with viewscapes for five units, he would also like to see what it <br />would look like with four or three units. He added that he thinks if Commissioner <br />Narum’s concern is what it would look like on two-acre lots, there are parameters <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 15, 2009 Page 15 of 24 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.