My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 112502
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
PC 112502
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:47:57 PM
Creation date
4/15/2003 8:49:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/25/2002
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 112502
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
<br />- <br /> <br />Jerry Iserson presented the staff report, describing the proposed code amendment. He <br />noted that the Planning Commission received a memo this evening modifying the code <br />amendment to delete the requirement that the porch be at least 50 percent of the width of <br />the house. He further noted that staff feels that the requirement that the porch be a <br />minimum width often feet is adequate. He advised that staff is recommending that the <br />Planning Commission recommend approval of the code amendment to the City Council. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Roberts, Mr. Iserson noted that porches are <br />usually covered with a roof, but it could also be a trellis or lattice. He also confirmed that <br />if the porch is under ten feet in height, design review is not required. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued about the possibility of requiring administrative design review for any <br />covered porch. Commissioner Roberts expressed concern about the types of roofs that <br />people may install. <br /> <br />Commissioner Arkin questioned the height allowances, noting that he wants to be sure <br />there are safeguards to keep people with elevated decks from being able to have views <br />into their neighbors' yards. Chairperson Maas advised that the requirement for <br />administrative design review would address this concern. Mr. Iserson confirmed that this <br />process included notices being sent to neighbors, <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br />r- No one spoke. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br />Commissioner Roberts moved to recommend approval of Case PRZ-16, to the City <br />Council, as shown on Exhibit "A," with the modification noted in staff's memorandum <br />dated November 25. 2002, and requiring administrative design review for all cases. <br />Commissioner Arkin seconded the motion. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSTAIN: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Commissioners Arkin, Kameny, Maas, Roberts, and Sullivan <br />None <br />None <br />None <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC-2002-75 was entered and adopted as motioned. <br /> <br />c, Review of and Recommendations Re2ardin2 Growth Mana2ement: <br />1. 2002 Growth Management Report; <br />2. Future years' annual allocations; <br />3. Future years' major projects and first-come, first-served sub-allocations; and <br /> <br />r- <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES <br /> <br />November 25, 2002 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.