My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2017
>
100317
>
11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/27/2017 4:35:21 PM
Creation date
9/27/2017 3:37:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
10/3/2017
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
11
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
119
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).
View images
View plain text
by way of landscaping. He recognized code enforcement had been involved with the <br /> current issues but has not been able to mitigate the complaints. <br /> Chair Balch remarked, landscaping is not a code enforcement issue. <br /> Mr. Beaudin informed the Commission, blight or complaints about landscaping not fitting <br /> an approved project would be addressed by code enforcement. <br /> Chair Balch asked Mr. Beaudin to clarify that without a PUD it would need to be blight. <br /> Mr. Beaudin replied yes. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor proposed a condition be ad005.tqAddress the landscaping <br /> concerns. He indicated, beyond the landscaping, he_believed the applicant made the <br /> improvements asked for at the workshop. x- <br /> Mr. Beaudin referenced Exhibit C, asking Commissioner O'Connor leconditions No. 3 <br /> and 4 would address his concerns. <br /> 44ea <br /> Commissioner O'Connor asked if the trees beinWremoved°were heritage. <br /> Mr. Luchini answered yes, and explained the tree in IA,rear of the home was found to <br /> be causing structural damage. <br /> Chair Balch suggested a straw poll vote be taken before delving into the conditions of <br /> approval. He surmised theCommission is odtin support;of"the massing and asked staff <br /> to explain the Commission s options. <br /> Mr. Beaudin stated the Commission can continue the application or deny the application <br /> and the applicant would be�able¢to appeal thedenial to the City Council and come back <br /> with a revised designLL ' <br /> Commissioner Ritter expressed..,his agreement with Chair Balch on property owner <br /> rights and his apprehension with the design based on the detail of the plans submitted <br /> and theparking concernsF; + <br /> Commissioner Allen stated 'she was in favor of denying the application and giving the <br /> applicant the oppottunity�to return with revised plans. <br /> Commissioner Nagler agreed with Commissioner Allen and suggested the Commission <br /> decide on the application rather than continuing it so as not to further delay the project. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor disagreed with the comments favoring denial and <br /> recommended the Commission approve the project but condition it to appropriately <br /> allow the Director to have final approval. He supported his opinion, arguing the applicant <br /> met the requests of the Commission and suggesting appropriate landscaping could <br /> change the massing impacts. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 23, 2017 Page 3 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.