My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 041311
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 041311
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
7/18/2011 3:18:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/13/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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 Olson noted that there is an attached garage next door right on the <br />street. He indicated that he supported the design of the placement of the garage as <br />part of the front façade and thinks it is appropriate. <br /> <br />Chair Narum agreed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce stated that she really likes a lot of what the house looks like: the <br />balcony, the porch, and tandem parking, but not the attached garage. She indicated <br />that she would prefer not to see it attached as it feels too modern for this area. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson stated that he does not understand Commissioner Pearce <br />opposition to an attached garage and asked if she would support moving the garage <br />next to the garage next door and out to the street. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin stated that he did not have a problem with the garage. <br /> <br />Chair Narum stated that that the garage <br />is not typical of a 100-year-old house. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson reiterated that the house would be new. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce stated that she is open to discussion and would simply ask that <br />the garage be looked at. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin stated that said he does not see how the lot would still have <br />parking without having the garage, unless it was a covered carport that did go through <br />to the backyard. <br /> <br />5. Is the building design appropriate for the site? <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson voiced support for the visual design of the home, but he still had <br />some concerns about the massing. He stated that in order to address the massing <br />question, a shadow study is needed; however, he did not believe 1,800 square feet was <br />excessive. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin stated that based on what he sees in the drawings and hears <br />regarding how the applicant wants to fit the house in with the scheme, the architectural <br />details, and the colors, he thinks the design is fine. He likewise indicated that he was <br />still concerned with the massing and the size and agrees that a shadow study will also <br />provide additional information. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce agreed and stated that she liked the line drawings and <br />appreciates the Cunninghams desire to integrate this into the neighborhood. She <br />noted, however, that it is difficult to see how this is going to fit in with the neighborhood <br />without some sort of streetscape. She asked the applicant to consider providing more <br />detail as to how it will fit in when it comes back as an application. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MINUTES, April 13, 2011 Page 16 of 19 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.