My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 011316
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
PC 011316
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2017 2:27:43 PM
Creation date
8/11/2017 2:19:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/13/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
Ritter: I'll just add my two cents. I always say if a plan is wrong change it, but just don't <br />tweak it all the time. But I am in favor of supporting the General Plan. It's been updated <br />as of January 2015 so it actually has been constantly reviewed, but I'm not totally <br />opposed to maybe going to four homes to maybe get some extra amenities that they <br />might need to make this work on this land's location, but I really don't want to visualize <br />three driveways coming out on that road. That's kind of my big feeling and I'll just go <br />right into the next one and start there unless you guys finish, but I would love to see one <br />entrance and access off of that road versus three and that's why I go to the five homes <br />because it is kind of a busy road and I like the flasher light idea. I just don't want to see <br />three driveways coming out onto that road, so that's my though. Let's go this way. <br />O'Connor: Well, you know, I'll agree with you. I don't want to see three driveways either <br />so there's already an existing one. They're proposing a second one and I think we can <br />get three homes in here with only two driveways. And I do see that as the problem with <br />the layout. I think the lots do need to be bigger and I think we can do that with the <br />existing driveway more. <br />Balch: Maybe a point of clarification than a question. This driveway is right up against <br />Dublin Canyon Road which was a point of contention, a question earlier in the staff <br />report, is that there is only a 20 -foot buffer and it was going to be for a bioswale I <br />believe for a bit of it. So I kind of wanted to ask, you know, in light of your comments, do <br />you want to see the road move deeper into the lot? <br />O'Connor: No, so I don't envision this road, this court being here. I envision only a <br />driveway coming in to access two lots, yes, and the other driveway existing for the <br />church we could come off of that to access the other lots. So no, I'm looking at this <br />entire road going away. <br />Ritter: I would just love to have just one road come out. <br />O'Connor: Well, we're going to have at least two. <br />Ritter: Well, you're not counting the current access road. <br />O'Connor: Yes, that's the second one. <br />Balch: Okay, so I'll follow -up. So, obviously losing the other comment element, going <br />with three, I fully agree with prior comments that I don't want to see three driveways or <br />four with the existing, so I would like to see some consolidation into a singular primary <br />driveway off of Dublin Canyon and then some spoking of some nature off of that. If it is <br />this or something similar to this in light of three, I'd like to see it set back further from <br />Dublin Canyon Road because the rural nature is exactly what it sounds like this body is <br />supporting. So unfortunately, I think you're going to be pushing towards the creek <br />enough to have this noticeable buffer. And primarily my comment, and I'm going to pick <br />up on something that's going to go later one, primarily my reasoning would be so you <br />could meander the sidewalk if this City's going to require it so as not to remove the <br />heritage trees that are on this particular access. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 13, 2016 Page 20 of 26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.