My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
12
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
110315
>
12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/29/2015 12:58:41 PM
Creation date
10/28/2015 3:27:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
11/3/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
12
Document Relationships
12 ATTACHMENT 5 EXHIBIT B
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2015\110315
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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
DRAFT <br /> 2. Option 2 —would specify only certain exterior modifications that are subject to <br /> design review, basically exterior wall and foundation cladding, porches and <br /> balconies, windows and window surrounds, roofs, chimneys, front doors and <br /> architectural trim and details. Staff believes this is a reasonable list and <br /> language to use and is recommending it for Commission approval. <br /> Commissioner Ritter inquired which of those two options staff currently uses when a <br /> citizen comes in for design review, and if that would be the same as Option 2. He <br /> further inquired if a citizen needs approval to change his mailbox if his house is not a <br /> historic home. <br /> Mr. Otto explained that if a citizen is proposing something that currently triggers design <br /> review, such as an addition or a new two-story window or changing the roof from a flat <br /> roof to a gable roof, that would be submitted to staff for review under the parameters <br /> and guidelines in the DTSP. He indicated that it would be closer to Option 2, depending <br /> on exactly what is being proposed. <br /> Commissioner Nagler inquired if this would be more restrictive than for a 1942 home. <br /> Mr. Otto replied that was correct. <br /> Commissioner Balch inquired how much a Design Review application fee is. <br /> Mr. Otto replied that the Design Review application fee is $250. <br /> Commissioner Balch further asked if Design Review can be at done staff level. <br /> Mr. Otto said yes. He added that this is drafted to follow the Administrative Design <br /> Review process, which is a staff-level process. <br /> Commissioner Balch inquired what the fee is for over-the-counter approvals. <br /> Mr. Otto explained that this is not an over-the-counter process: it entails submitting the <br /> application form with a set of plans, notices are sent out to the adjacent properties, and <br /> if nobody objects to the proposal within seven days, it gets approval. <br /> Commissioner Balch inquired if this applies for all design reviews. <br /> Mr. Otto said yes; the Administrative Design Review process applies to any addition to a <br /> house anywhere in the City. <br /> Commissioner Balch inquired if a Design Review application is needed to install a <br /> seven-foot tall fence, which is over the six-foot tall required limit. <br /> Mr. Otto replied that fences had a special PMC Amendment done about ten years ago, <br /> and fences up to eight feet in height can be approved with an over-the-counter <br /> Administrative Design Review process. <br /> DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 10/14/2015 Page 6 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.