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
Jenny Soo presented the staff report and described the scope, layout, and key elements <br />of the proposal. <br />Chair Ritter: Okay, any questions before we have speakers? <br />Commissioner Balch: The filled area or driveway area, is all of that fill within the building <br />envelope area? <br />Soo: Yes. <br />Commissioner Balch: I thought so, I just wanted to clarify, so it does stick within that <br />area? <br />Soo: It's here, yes. <br />Commissioner Balch: Okay that's what I wanted to ask. Thank you. <br />Chair Ritter: And then the applicant has agreed with the special conditions that you've <br />stated? <br />Soo: We talked about it. The architect didn't give me a definite answer but he said, <br />"okay, if that's what staff asked" and I said yes. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED <br />Chair Ritter: Okay, we'll hear from the applicant first. Thanks for coming. <br />Frank Berlogar, Applicant: My name's Frank Berlogar. Chairman Ritter and members of <br />the Commission, thank you for the chance to talk with you tonight. You know, I actually <br />think the design is a great design and has a lot of pluses and I don't see any negatives, <br />but let me walk you through my line of reasoning about the design guidelines and the <br />architect who wrote those who has reviewed the plans and approved the design, and <br />his comment was he liked this design better than the other one because he felt this one <br />really got it right. <br />The size of the house is 25 percent smaller than allowed. The height of the house is <br />only 32 feet with 40 feet allowed. In the staff report they indicated 40 feet, but the height <br />is 32 feet, so the house is smaller visually and eight feet lower than required by the <br />design guidelines. The house has 400 feet of private drive behind the gate that the City <br />requires. The closest neighbor is 300 feet away. The only traffic that goes by this house <br />is people going to the upper house. There is no public access, nobody gets close, and <br />so the impact is all from a distance. The driveway serving the two homes is 16 -feet wide <br />so with the circular driveway, there is the opportunity for guests and visitors to this <br />house to drive up, park in that circular driveway and then exit. But with the 30 -foot <br />configuration, one car pretty much blocks the garage area and the access in and out for <br />other vehicles. So that means by- and -large all guests must park down on the 16 -foot <br />private drive and then the cars line up broadside to my neighbors. The point that is not <br />well understood is that without the additional fill and retaining walls, that portion of the <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 13, 2016 Page 14 of 33 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.