My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 05:069A
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2005
>
SR 05:069A
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2005 1:59:43 PM
Creation date
3/10/2005 1:00:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
3/15/2005
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 05:069A
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
89
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
same training. She felt this could prevent issues coming forward that might require a lot <br />of staff time. The residents could have assurance that their goals for design and <br />conformance to the design guidelines would be achieved. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked when that would happen. She believed there would be a <br />Zoning Administrator workshop prior to the final determination. Any action would be <br />appealable to the Planning Commission if necessary. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala asked if that would move the process a little faster. <br /> <br />Ms. Michelotti asked when peer review for a house design happens. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that peer review happens prior to any hearing on a particular <br />plan. Staff can create whatever process Council would like. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala asked if this would be cumbersome. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift felt the concept was a desire for the neighbors to be able to review a <br />plan in conjunction with the City's peer reviewer so there is some discussion about the <br />design before final action. That process is possible and is what is done with major <br />projects. That has not been done with an individual house design. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti was concerned that this would set a precedent for other <br />applications of one or more houses. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis indicated that when there was a Design Review Board, every <br />application came before that Board. The point of hiring a peer review was to replace the <br />Design Review Board. The Planning Commission seems to be missing that function and <br />that was why the recommended peer review. There is value for the public to have access <br />to a professional person to address their concerns before going to the Planning <br />Commission. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala felt the path added a complication to this application and perhaps the <br />design review could resolve the issues. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift felt the path was a separate issue from the design of the house. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis suggested rewriting the condition to require PUD development plan <br />design guidelines shall be modified to require that the house designs for all new houses <br />shall be submitted to review by a City peer reviewer. The Planning Commission can <br />always review it if it wants to. <br /> <br />Mr. Tarver asked how notification would be handled. <br /> <br />Excerpt from the City Council Meeting Minutes of 9/20/99 5 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.