My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 071112
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
PC 071112
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:15:01 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 3:00:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/11/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
Mr. Dolan replied that it would be hard for him to envision a project that would not <br />require an exception, some of which will be minor and others will be a little more <br />involved, but that does not mean the design standard should be eliminated right at the <br />start. He noted that there were exceptions that everybody determined to be fine with <br />the BRE project, some of which were pretty substantial. He indicated that he did not <br />think all of these projects will require as many as those of the BRE project, but he can <br />see something on each of them. <br />With respect to whether or not a workshop is necessary, he stated that the workshop <br />has a lot of purposes. He noted that it helps the applicant to understand where the <br />Commission is coming from and gives the Commissioners an early look at the project <br />so they are not asked to act in one night. He added that staff is willing to forego a <br />workshop if the Commission so desires, but, in general, applicants tend to like them <br />actually because of the feedback they will get. <br />Commissioner Narum stated that what she was getting at was if the Commission wants <br />to hold on to standards where they had expressed some concerns, she would be fine <br />with having a working. She indicated that she was referring to sites where the <br />Commission may feel it did not need a workshop to make that exception. <br />Vice Chair Blank stated that part of his concern is that development is going to take <br />place over several years and that he would not want to handcuff a future Planning <br />Commission. He indicated that the Commission has put so much work into this, and the <br />project has been reviewed so many times, that he is a little hesitant to make or <br />recommend any significant changes. He noted that he thinks staff does a pretty good <br />job of figuring out when workshops are needed and when they are not, when this is <br />really an exception and when it is not. He added that there have been projects that <br />have come before the Commission that the Commission had sent back for a workshop. <br />He indicated that he does not want to undo or over - regulate something that seems to be <br />working. <br />Commissioner Pearce stated that she did not think there is any downside to having a <br />short workshop. She noted that the Commission has had workshops that are a <br />half -hour long where the applicants get the feedback, and the applicants are <br />comfortable when the projects come to the Commission, and the Commission is <br />likewise comfortable when it has seen the projects. <br />Commissioner Narum agreed and stated that it is just a time question and lengthening <br />the process. <br />Commissioner Pearce agreed with Vice Chair Blank that staff has a good sense of <br />when a project needs a workshop. <br />Commissioner Narum stated that she did not disagree with that but would just want to <br />make sure that if the Commission leaves this as it is, there is some discretion or <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 11, 2012 Page 14 of 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.