My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
110315
>
11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/28/2015 3:38:00 PM
Creation date
10/14/2015 3:54:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
11/3/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
11 ATTACHMENTS 9-16
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
270
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
Chair Allen added that she is strongly opposed to the estate lots, especially Lot 32 most <br /> specifically, because it is about 100 feet higher than the other homes and contrary to <br /> the intent of Measure QQ and Measure PP regarding protecting scenic hillsides and <br /> views. She indicated that she would like Lot 32 to be taken out, as well as Lot 31,which <br /> is a little lower at 40 or 50 feet above the other lots, but still higher than the rest. <br /> Commissioner Balch asked Chair Allen if she wants Lot 32 to be eliminated or just have <br /> the home sited lower. <br /> Chair Allen stated that she is proposing to eliminate the lot. She noted that it is a large <br /> site, so whatever gets built there will most likely be a very large house, prominently 100 <br /> feet above everything else. <br /> Commissioner Balch brought up the element also mentioned by Commissioner Nagler <br /> regarding the unit of measure of two feet versus some other measure. He asked Chair <br /> Allen and Commissioner Piper if they were fine with that. <br /> Chair Allen and Commissioner Piper replied that they p Y were. <br /> Commissioner Balch stated that the other element was the vertical setback: 100 feet <br /> down and 100 feet across. <br /> Chair Allen stated she was comfortable with that for this project, but that she does not <br /> know how that would apply to other projects because it has not been tested. She <br /> indicated that she wants to make sure that this is not precedent-setting. <br /> Commissioner Balch stated that was a good point because of the contours of the land. <br /> He noted, however, that he believes all the Commissioners are fine with it. <br /> Commissioner Nagler agreed. <br /> Commissioner Balch then mentioned artificial slopes and stated that he was fine with <br /> staffs interpretation. <br /> Chair Allen stated that she was fine with it as long as the original slope line was less <br /> than 25 percent, and Mr. Dolan's engineering drawings indicate that the original slope <br /> was less than 25 percent. <br /> Commissioner Balch stated that he would like to talk about the issue of the retaining <br /> wall. He stated that he also asked a lot of people who were community members but <br /> not directly involved with the issue about their definition of a structure. He indicated that <br /> a most of the people hesitated at first, and then some said it is infrastructure. He added <br /> that a lot of people asked how big the road was and if it is a dirt road or a freeway. He <br /> stated that he actually grappled with that a lot and still does because he personally <br /> could easily get to the point of saying it would by putting down basic base rock, a <br /> foundation for a road and a pavement overlay that he could see was not a structure, <br /> basically because it could be easily moved, easily done, and not significantly <br /> engineered, which is his kind of my criteria for structure. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 36 of 45 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.