My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
22 ATTACHMENT 03
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2014
>
041514
>
22 ATTACHMENT 03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/19/2015 3:38:44 PM
Creation date
4/4/2014 1:11:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
4/15/2014
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
22 ATTACHMENT 3
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).
View images
View plain text
ATTACHMENT 3 <br /> THE CITY OF <br /> pLSTáNO <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> Date: October 23,2006 <br /> To: Chair Fox and Members of the Planning Commission <br /> From: Jerry Iserson,Director of Planning and Community Development <br /> Subject: PUD-32, Sarich Workshop <br /> As the Commission is aware,this project has raised a number of issues which the Planning Commission <br /> discussed at the previous workshop held on September 28,2005. One of these items was the status of <br /> the project with respect to the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan, specifically,how precise the <br /> house locations were meant to be as represented by the"blobs"or dots on the Specific Plan Land Use <br /> Map. Staff made the argument, and at least some of the Planning Commissioners agreed,that typically <br /> these types of dots shown on specific plans are somewhat general in terms of location,and that specific <br /> plans allow for some degree of flexibility as to the precise building or road locations shown on specific <br /> plan land use maps. <br /> However,staff has since consulted with Wayne Rasmussen, former Principal Planner and project <br /> planner for the Specific Plan. Wayne stated his belief that,due to the environmental constraints in the <br /> Hillside Residential areas, the house locations were meant to be fairly precise as represented by the <br /> "blobs". Furthermore,with the consideration of the Remick PUD,the Commission and Council <br /> approved house locations which varied from the locations represented by the"blobs"on the Specific <br /> Plan Land Use map by finding that the new locations would result in an environmentally superior plan. <br /> Staff believes that these new considerations should be noted. <br /> Staff believes that this project could still be processed as a PUD with no Specific Plan amendment if the <br /> Commission were to make the finding that the proposed house location would result in an <br /> environmentally superior plan than that shown on the Specific Plan. There may be valid reasons for <br /> doing so,since locating the home elsewhere on the site may result in other environmental issues. <br /> Alternatively, the Commission could decide that a Specific Plan amendment is not necessary based on <br /> the point that the"blob"locations are meant to be general and applied with flexibility,and that <br /> consideration of the proposed house at this location would be based on project design issues,such as <br /> building height, grading,visibility,house size,tree removal,screening,etc. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.