My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 071311
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 071311
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
10/3/2011 3:41:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/13/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
The Commission also directed staff to address accessibility to the side of the <br />stage. <br />Commissioner Pentin seconded the motion. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson proposed an amendment regarding plain language disclosure in <br />the conditions of approval. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank indicated that it is already included in the conditions. <br /> <br />Chair Narum proposed a modification to the condition on the playground equipment that <br />it be installed in conjunction with the Landscape Architect's determination of what play <br />structure would be appropriate for the limited space. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank proposed the language "The type of play structure shall be subject <br />to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development." <br /> <br />Commissioners Pentin inquired if the stipulation included that the builder would have the <br />th <br />vote of the HOA after the 11 lot is sold and that the tot lot will be paid for by the <br />developer. <br /> <br />Chair Narum said yes. <br /> <br />Commissioners Blank and Pentin accepted the amendment. <br /> <br />that he is in agreement with Commissioner Blank's <br />statement. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce stated that her position on this property is well-known and that <br />she is gratified that the City Council returned this to the Commission for further work. <br />She indicated that she thinks this is a better project than it was when it was originally <br />forwarded to the City Council, which has always been her hope. She added that she <br />believes the applicant has <br />the project and that, therefore, she will support the motion. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce continued that she is disappointed that the house could not be <br />saved; however, she believes that under the current City guidelines regarding <br />preservation, these guidelines have been satisfied. She noted that an expert was asked <br />to come in to determine whether or not this was a historical resource; the expert did that <br />and determined that it was not. She reiterated that this underscores the importance of <br />having historic preservation discussions, so that the City can determine what is <br />important to the City and not be reliant on the State and Federal guidelines. She <br />indicated that she is gratified that two additional trees have been saved but is <br />disappointed that more could not be saved, although she understands the financial and <br />other constraints of the project. She emphasized that she believes this is a very <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2011 Page 11 of 21 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.