My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 041316
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
PC 041316
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2017 2:34:09 PM
Creation date
8/11/2017 2:29:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/13/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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 Balch: Can I just mention though a point of clarification, we haven't <br />actually addressed the last speaker's question about height, but just to circle for me, the <br />height element wasn't an issue for me and I'll just say that in looking at the design <br />standards around the area, this house fit all of our height requirements so I just want to <br />acknowledge that was brought up tonight in talking about this, but it is well within the <br />envelope provided for the guidelines we have for downtown infill projects. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: It's the shortest of all the neighboring houses <br />Commissioner Allen: I agree. <br />Chair Ritter: I'm feeling a little frustrated that it just came out at the end, but part of the <br />process is to go through that, and as Gerry said earlier, we do make changes at this <br />stage of the process. I'm more inclined... this is the longest Consent item I've ever <br />experienced .... it sounds like staff and the applicant have some more discussions to do <br />and I'm not inclined to continue it, I'm actually inclined to approve it with the condition <br />that they get the Director of Community Development in agreement upon a re- design <br />and as you heard, we don't want to make it a major re- design. It seems like little bits <br />would work so we can keep the process going, so that's kind of my thought, to approve <br />it with a condition, and I don't know if any of you are in support of that? <br />Commissioner Allen: I would support that <br />Commissioner Balch: I'd support it also. <br />Commissioner Balch moved to approve Case PUD -112, 1027 Rose Avenue, <br />subject to the Conditions of Approval as shown in Exhibit A of the staff report, <br />and with the modification of Condition No. 38 as presented to the Commission in <br />the staff memo dated April 13, 2016. <br />Commissioner Allen seconded the motion. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />AYES: Commissioners Allen, Balch, Nagler, O'Connor, and Ritter <br />NOES: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />RECUSED: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />Resolution No. PC- 2016 -08 approving Case PUD -112 was entered and adopted as <br />motioned. <br />6. PUBLIC HEARING AND OTHER MATTERS <br />P16 -0006, Frank Berlogar <br />Application for Design Review approval to construct an approximately <br />6,486- square -foot single - family residence at 39 Silver Oaks Court. <br />Zoning for the property is PUD -HR (Planned Unit Development — Hillside <br />Residential) District. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 13, 2016 Page 13 of 33 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.