My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 110911
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 110911
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
2/2/2012 11:25:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/9/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
landscape plan be subject to the review <br />and approval of the Director of Community and Development to ensure that plantings <br />are located correctly to ensure privacy. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin inquired if the five or six heritage oak trees mentioned by a <br />neighbor are in danger, even with standard conditions of approval for erosion and storm <br />water. He stated that he would not want to see another heritage tree lost because of <br />development on another property. <br /> <br />Ms Jost replied that he could not speak where the existing drainage goes from this <br />house because it basically looks like most of the drainage is going in the direction away <br />from the house where the tree was damaged. He proposed an additional condition that <br />addresses taking the drainage to the front of the property so there is no doubt about <br />that. <br /> <br />requested confirmation that no construction is occurring to the <br />rear of the home except for a window or two and a sliding door and balcony, that no <br />grading is taking place, and that no variances are required. <br /> <br />Ms. Amos confirmed that was correct. <br /> <br />Ms. Stern added that the existing retaining wall will not be touched either. <br /> <br />Chair Narum noted that the color change of the window frames is more consistent with <br />the Foothill Overlay District. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson stated that he is still concerned about the story poles. He <br />indicated that it seems fundamental that if one knows the footprint of the new <br />construction, one can determine from the completed plans that story poles can be <br />erected to the proper heights on the footprint all the way around the new construction. <br />He added that he does not understand why this could not be done since, as indicated <br />by one of the neighbors, this would solve many problems. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce agreed. <br /> <br />Chair Narum questioned what the story poles would resolve, as no variances are being <br />required and the project is below the height requirements for the Overlay District. She <br />indicated that she was not sure what could be gained from the requirement other than <br />that there would be no argument about which visuals are correct. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson noted that the Commission does not have the proper visuals for <br />the project and story poles would help in this situation. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce stated that the Commission frequently sees projects that do not <br />require variances and looks at mitigating any impact to the neighbors. She noted that <br />frequently, those impacts can be mitigated with visuals, but when there are two <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 9, 2011 Page 8 of 29 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.