My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 11/08/1995
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
PC 11/08/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2017 3:58:08 PM
Creation date
3/30/2005 2:40:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/8/1995
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 11/08/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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 />Mr. Iserson presented the staff report for development plan approval for a clustered l45-unit <br />single-family detached residential development located in Hacienda Business Park between <br />Gibraltar Drive and Tassajarra Creek. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson described the design, site plan, and traffic circulation pattern. There will be <br />parking on one side of the street, and most of the driveways are eighteen feet long. This <br />development can be compared to the Belvedere development. A soundwall will be <br />constructed to mitigate traffic noise, however, heavy landscaping and berming will screen the <br />view of the wall. The applicant would rather not call attention to the wall through <br />enhancements of the design; they would rather blend the wall with additional berming and <br />landscaping. This is something that the Commission may want to condition. The applicant <br />has requested the soundwall be able to encroach into the Public Service Easement (PSE) to <br />allow for staggering and movement of the wall. Staff did not approve of this request, <br />initially; now, since the applicant has agreed to install the planter walls in front of the <br />soundwall, minor encroachments into the PSE may be appropriate. <br /> <br />Staff feels the project is well designed; staff has only one concern for a proposed color in the <br />color pallet. The consulting architect has reviewed the plans and some of his suggestions <br />have been incorporated. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson discussed the modifications to the conditions of approval distributed in a memo <br />at the meeting. The modified conditions are: <br /> <br />Condition l2B, staff would not want to insist all curbs be painted red. <br /> <br />Condition l2F-2,3,4,5, changes to wording have been made regarding building separation. <br /> <br />Condition 121-3, applicant to comply with the recommendations of the acoustical report. <br /> <br />Condition 17A-6, giving more leeway to work out design issues on Court M. <br /> <br />Condition 19F, requirement for plans to be given to Building Department on computer disk <br />would be up to the discretion of the Director of Building Inspection. <br /> <br />Based on the above modifications and discussions, staff recommends approval of <br />PUD-8l-30-60D. <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Barker, Mr. Iserson advised that the condition regarding park <br />fees is the standard condition the City Council has asked be added to all applications. <br />Commissioner Barker also asked about the size of the garages and whether they were a full <br />20' x 20' . <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 16 <br /> <br />November 8, 1995 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.