My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 012313
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
PC 012313
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:34:35 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 3:25:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/23/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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
because that is not covered by Measure PP at all, which covers only residential and <br />commercial development. <br />Commissioner Narum noted that if the Commission chose this definition, and if a road <br />needed to go partly on a slope that was greater than 25 percent to get to a flat area or a <br />reasonable area for building, then that could not happen. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that it would be an exception. <br />Commissioner Narum commented that maybe she is missing something here because <br />she is not reading where this says it can grant an exception. <br />Chair Blank clarified that what the Commission is saying is that it determines that roads <br />are intended as a structure and that they are a physical improvement of property and, <br />therefore, are covered by Measure PP unless the street or road is covered by a PUD <br />Development Plan. He noted that the exception is the PUD Development Plan. <br />Commissioner Narum replied that if there is a piece of land that was not covered by a <br />PUD, and to get to a part of the land that made sense to build, part of the road had to go <br />on a 25- percent slope, then that would not be allowed. <br />Chair Blank confirmed that it would be prohibited by this language. <br />Commissioner Narum inquired if that is necessarily what the Commission wants to do. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that he thinks that was the intent of Measure PP. <br />Commissioner Pearce agreed. She added that if the Commission says it is a structure, <br />then that is what the Commission wants to do. <br />Commissioner Narum suggested that maybe the Commission might preclude a <br />potentially better spot where they might want to put the houses. She stated that she <br />has been back and forth both ways. <br />Chair Blank stated that he thinks this could be argued either way. He noted, however, <br />that the City Council made the call that a road is a structure, and he could support that. <br />Commissioner O'Connor added that it is not just that but that if it was not a structure, a <br />road could be sometimes more scarring to a hillside than a development. <br />Commissioner Olson agreed. He indicated that the City does not want buildings or <br />roads there. <br />Commissioner Pearce also agreed. She stated that she is not inclined to grant any <br />additional exceptions apart from already being in a PUD. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 23, 2013 Page 28 of 44 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.