My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
06
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2016
>
060716
>
06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2016 11:38:04 AM
Creation date
6/1/2016 9:41:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
6/7/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
06
Document Relationships
06 ATTACHMENT 3
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\060716
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
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
Soo: This slide gives you an idea of where the specific plan says it could go. That is <br /> what the mustard colored circle, the blob, designates. The proposal is for this outline in <br /> red to be the building envelope that contains everything inside for Lot 1 and this for <br /> Lot 2. So all of the development needs to be limited within those boundaries. <br /> Commissioner Balch: Okay, so Lot 2 begs in my view to be split into another lot. I know <br /> this is a north/south orientation. The southern portion where you can see the existing <br /> home there, the southern portion can't be lobbed off, correct? In going forward with this <br /> plan, the southern portion of this Lot 2 must stay and contain with the northern portion. <br /> Soo: Actually you can see here there is a number 2. That is in the specific plan. In this <br /> area you are only allowed to create 2 new lots, so this is it. If Mr. Berlogar later on would <br /> like to have additional lots, one or two or even more, Mr. Berlogar will come back asking <br /> for a specific plan amendment. <br /> Commissioner Balch: I see, so theoretically if Lot 2, given its girth of 15 acres <br /> approximately, wanted to be broken out further... <br /> Soo: It's a process, yes. <br /> Commissioner Balch: I don't know if that's where you're heading Commissioner Allen, <br /> but that was my question. <br /> Commissioner Allen: Thank you for asking. Are there any other lots within what's called <br /> Lot 22 on page 2 that will be coming forward? <br /> Soo: No. The 9 lots already happened. When we discussed PUD-84 two years ago on <br /> the other side, the specific plan allowed for 3, Mr. Berlogar applied for 2 and we <br /> approved the 2 and he gave up the 3rd lot so that one is gone. If he wanted any more it <br /> would require a specific plan amendment. <br /> Commissioner Allen: And then the 9 lots....? <br /> Soo: Are in the front. <br /> Commissioner Allen: So those are the ones that exist. They existed prior to PP. <br /> Soo: Yes, that's correct. <br /> Commissioner Allen: Thank you. <br /> Commissioner Nagler: Because that means in the aggregate, even if the applicant came <br /> back later and asked, he still won't penetrate PP because 9 of the lots predated it. <br /> Okay, got it. <br /> Commissioner Brown: I just wanted to ask one quick question. So you clarified the <br /> question I had in terms of the two views which is great. Unlike in the plan of Item 5.a. <br /> where it was part of the plan that it had to be less than 20 percent if it was going to be a <br /> two-story, there's nothing in the specific plan that talks about going beyond the limit, <br /> right? I know staff said in generalities, when you compare the two views, I mean based <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 11, 2016 Page 2 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.