My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 051116
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
PC 051116
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2017 2:34:27 PM
Creation date
8/11/2017 2:30:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/11/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
b. PUD -116, Frank Berlogar <br />Application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development Plan for the <br />approximately 34.3 -acre parcel located at 88 Silver Oaks Court to construct <br />two new single - family residences of approximately 6,117 square feet with a <br />four -car garage and approximately 6,372 square feet with a four -car garage <br />and related improvements on two new lots measuring approximately <br />3.88 acres and 14.56 acres, respectively; and to retain the existing <br />single - family residence, second unit, and accessary structures on the <br />approximately 15.86 -acre remainder parcel. Zoning for the property is <br />Planned Unit Development — Hillside Residential /Open Space (PUD- HR /OS) <br />District. <br />Jenny Soo presented the staff report and described the scope, layout and key elements <br />of the proposal. <br />Larissa Seto: Could I just jump in with one further comment with regard to the email that <br />was received from Ms. Humphrey on Friday, May 6th. One of the questions that were <br />posed was Question #4: Do these homes comply with Measure PP? I just wanted to <br />clarify for the record that that measure only applied to subdivisions of 10 or more lots <br />and because this is a 3 or more lot subdivision, those restrictions on grading and steep <br />slopes and issues don't apply here. That's why the other provisions in the staff report in <br />regard to General Plan conformity, these provisions without Measure PP and General <br />Plan conform with this. <br />Commissioner Allen: May I ask one question regarding that and I'm referring to page 2 <br />of 15. The Vineyard Avenue Specific Plan indicates that a total of 14 new residential <br />units could be developed on Lot 22 in addition to the existing home. We've been seeing <br />some of these applications one -off and this one happens to be 2 homes. My question is, <br />given there could be a total of 14 of which this would be 2 of the 14, does that have <br />implications to PP? <br />Seto: Measure PP's language was for the existing lot of record. If there were <br />subdivisions that went forward for 10 or more lots, part of it would be the timing for the <br />other subdivisions and when they happen in relation to when PP was adopted. So, to <br />the extent earlier lots had been developed first and subdivided first, then they wouldn't <br />be subject to the limit; only the lots of record when PP was adopted would be subject. <br />Commissioner Balch: Can I follow up on that? So for example, if Mr. Berlogar wanted to <br />subdivide out and put 20 homes on the site, then it would come in as required because <br />of the record of this lot. <br />Seto: Correct. Then because this subdivision is happening after PP is adopted you <br />would say he's already had the existing 30 acre lot subdivided so there would <br />technically only be 7 more left if he wanted to be not subject to the PP restrictions. If he <br />wanted a full 20 that would require obviously a specific plan amendment and other <br />changes, then that would have to be in compliance with Measure PP's restrictions. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 11, 2016 Page 6 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.