My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 10/23/96
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
PC 10/23/96
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2017 4:01:41 PM
Creation date
2/23/2005 4:44:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/23/1996
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 10/23/96
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />b. Actions of the City Council <br /> <br />Commissioner Cooper spoke to the fact that the City Council significantly changed the Branagh <br />project to no housing and office space on the second floor. He was taken aback by Karin Mohr's <br /> <br />statement that since the appearance did not change, the Planning Commission did not need to review <br />it. He agrees with Mayor Tarver that the new project idea should have been returned to the Planning <br />Commission for further public input and review. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson feels this is a difference in interpretation. Looking at the situation narrowly, the design <br />did not change in the project, only the use. Therefore, there was no need to review the design. <br />Looking at it more broadly, there was more involved with the project than just the design. <br /> <br />Chair Barker stated that there seemed to be a large call for apartments downtown and concurred with <br />Commissioner Cooper that no one got to comment on the elimination of this housing. <br /> <br />c. Actions of the Zonim! Administrator <br />No comment. <br /> <br />9. COMMUNICATIONS <br />There were none. <br /> <br />10. REFERRALS <br />There were none. <br /> <br />11. <br /> <br />MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S INFORMATION <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson stated that an application approved some years ago for a suites hotel on Dublin Canyon <br />Road is now being brought forward. The applicant wants to go forward with the same site plan, <br />but he wants to change the finish of the building from a stucco finish to a wood siding and brick <br />finish. Commissioner McGuirk feels that the project should be brought to the Commission again <br />since there are three new members on the Commission. Commissioner Wright would feel <br />comfortable having staff review and approve since it is only the exterior finish that is proposed to <br />be changed. <br /> <br />Chair Barker motioned, seconded by Commissioner Wright, that staff review the Marriott <br />Residence Inn project since it is only an exterior design change. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br />Commissioners Cooper, Lutz, Wright, and Chair Barker <br />Commissioner McGuirk <br />None <br />None <br /> <br />Because there was not a unanimous approval, this design review will be brought back through the <br />Planning Commission. <br /> <br />PlannIng Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 16 <br /> <br />October 23, 1996 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.