My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 031313
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
PC 031313
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:36:57 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 3:29:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/13/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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
Commissioner Pearce replied that an inventory would not be in the ordinance. <br />Commissioner Narum stated that she would play the devil's advocate and say that that <br />here is the inventory, it is not in the ordinance; then the composition of the Commission <br />or the Council changes, and there is nothing to keep them from re- defining it potentially. <br />Chair Blank stated that the inventory would have to be made part of the ordinance once <br />the inventory is completed. <br />Commissioner Narum stated that the ordinance can still be changed. <br />Chair Blank agreed, stating that it could be referended and come back saying that none <br />of those things are ridges. He added that if the City Council came back and said none <br />of these are ridges, he suspects there would be another vote of the people; but he does <br />not think that would happen. He indicated that he thinks the implementation of this <br />ordinance should include that these are ridges subject to Measure PP, or these are the <br />ridges in Pleasanton that are affected by any ridgeline ordinance. <br />Commissioners Pearce, Olson, and Narum agreed. <br />Chair Blank summarized the discussion, indicating that the unanimous <br />consensus of the Planning Commission is that an inventory of the ridges should <br />be done. <br />Consider defining the ridgeline setback as a horizontal plane instead of a ground <br />line. This means looking at not allowing any buildings to exceed above the <br />100 -foot line drawn below a ridgeline as opposed to the base of the building. <br />Commissioner Olson stated that while he did not support Measure PP, a majority of the <br />people in town voted for it, and if he viewed Measure PP simply, it basically says not to <br />put any houses or roads within that 100 - vertical foot setback from the top of the ridge; <br />the people want the ridges to be unspoiled. He indicated that his view is anyone <br />building a home or a road up there cannot violate that 100 - vertical foot setback from the <br />top of the ridge. He recalled the Commission's discussion on whether it would be <br />measured from the foundation of the house or from the top of the house, and reiterated <br />that his view is that structures should not violate that 100- vertical foot space and should <br />be measured from the top of the house to the top of the ridge from that house. He <br />added that if it is half a mile away, then the viewscape should be considered as the <br />viewscape is also being protected here. <br />Chair Blank agreed with Commissioner Olson. He gave an example of a house that <br />had a 60 -foot spiral on it would be only 40 feet from the top of the ridge. He indicated <br />that he did not think that was the intent. <br />Mr. Dolan noted that the Commission has controls through the PUD and did not think <br />any 60 -foot spirals would be approved. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 13, 2013 Page 24 of 35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.