My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 032316
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
PC 032316
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2017 2:30:13 PM
Creation date
8/11/2017 2:23:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/23/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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
A. Does the Planning Commission support demolishing the existing home at <br />4372 Pleasanton Avenue and relocating the historic home at 536 St. John Street <br />to the Pleasanton Avenue site? <br />Chair Ritter: Do we want to do a comment? I'll just say I agree. <br />Commissioner Allen: I agree. <br />Commissioner Nagler: I have a quick comment which speaks to the applicant's point. I <br />totally support the idea of moving the historical home, but if that doesn't turn out to be <br />the site, what I would ask is that by the time this project comes back to this Commission <br />for approval, that the site be nailed down so that we can make an actual decision about <br />whether that site's the right place to put the house. <br />Commissioner Allen: I agree. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: I agree. <br />Chair Ritter: I agree. Okay, and discussion point B. <br />B. Is the proposed density for the St. John Street site acceptable? <br />Commissioner Nagler: I personally think that the scale of the building is appropriate to <br />the neighborhood. I think it's terrific that it is two stories. Had it been a three -story <br />proposal it would have been something to think about, so I think the density's fine. But, I <br />do think that this question is a very close cousin to the question about guest parking. <br />Chair Ritter: We're getting to that one. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: I agree, I'm okay with the density, but I'd like to talk more <br />about the parking and setbacks. <br />Commissioner Allen: Setbacks are included in the density <br />Commissioner O'Connor: If that's part of the density question, we should talk a little bit <br />Amos: It could also be a part of C, for the conceptual. <br />Chair Ritter: Nancy, are you okay with the proposed density other than the parking and <br />setback? <br />Commissioner Allen: Other than the setback discussion and the parking. <br />Chair Ritter: Ok, let's go to C. <br />C. Does the Planning Commission support PUD zoning for the 536 St. John Street <br />site and the conceptual site plans for the two sites? <br />Commissioner O'Connor: We do need to go to setbacks. I think the building height is <br />going to be fine at two stories. I'm sure we're not going up to 40 feet and we'll hopefully <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 23, 2016 Page 34 of 46 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.