My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 091411
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 091411
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
2/2/2012 11:18:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/14/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
that looks somewhat like it has the same roof type, that building could be put behind the <br />landscaping, and the front would be retained. <br /> <br />Ms. Rondash stated that the scope of work that should be considered is that the entire <br />fascia is actually elongating and there are additional windows, so the first initial section <br />of the wall is being retained and the rest of the wall is all brand new. She added that the <br />landscaping there must come out in order to add on the piece; however, the trellis and <br />the vines which go up the wall could be brought down, have work done behind it, and <br />then put back up. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin commented that it appears from the layout that if the wall in front <br />will remain, then all that landscaping in front is protected from being needed to be <br />removed. He added that if the house is put behind the established landscaping and <br />matched to some degree, the change would not appear significant; but if the <br />landscaping is removed, there would be a greater change in the streetscape. <br /> <br />Ms. Rondash stated that is correct. She noted that staff would need to see a <br />landscaping plan and how the Director approves any type of change on that. She <br />added that staff is of the same opinion that the initial façade with the landscaping would <br />contain the same feel as what is currently there. <br /> <br />Chair Narum referred to Condition No. 9 regarding incorporating stone treatments and <br />wood posts for the front entry and inquired what the basis for that is since the houses <br />along that street are all stucco. <br /> <br />Ms. discussion with applicant that the overall feel of the <br />architectural style is Craftsman, staff tried to pull in more elements that were Craftsman <br />type, such as stone work and the change to the entry with wood posts. She indicated <br />that the applicant agreed to those changes at that time. She added that the applicant <br />may not agree at this point but that she would let the applicant speak to that. <br /> <br />Chair Narum inquired if staff was trying to have the house blend in on the street. <br /> <br />Ms. Rondash replied that staff is trying to make the architecture fit in with the street <br />while being true to the style proposed; hence, the compromise assortment of things <br />which would keep the stucco around the sides, keep the trellis work currently there, tie <br />the wood trellis work into the posts, and tie the stone work at the bottom entry posts <br />which would bring the house more into the Craftsman style. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br />Jalayne Ladd, applicant, stated that her family purchased the subject property a <br />year-and-a-half ago and did not clearly have an idea then that after so long a time, they <br />would still be nowhere. She added that it has been really rough and then gave a brief <br />history of their application. She indicated that they designed a home, tried to <br />incorporate some of the existing architecture and redwood treatment of the Firehouse <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 14, 2011 Page 18 of 28 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.