My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 02/27/1991
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
PC 02/27/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2017 4:18:06 PM
Creation date
6/2/2005 11:48:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/27/1991
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 02/27/1991
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 />regard to the use of stucco, she supported staff's <br />recommendation; she was a~so in support of a 4,500 sq. ft. on the <br />homes in the first tier; she would leave Condition 43 as <br />recommended by staff; Condition 52 wording should be changed from <br />south to north. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued as to traffic issues in the area. <br /> <br />commissioner McGuirk stated he is comfortable with the project <br />proceedings and can support the approval of a Negative <br />Declaration without an EIR; however, he would not allow any <br />issuance of building permits until the drought is over; he can <br />support the extension of "C" Court as he would rather have a <br />controlled stop at "c" Court at Stoneridge than have pedestrians <br />and bikes try to get across Foothill Road. He was not in favor <br />of single-sidewalk streets as proposed for "E" Court and "A" <br />street and felt this was too dangerous for walkers and bikers. <br />For extra safety, he would provide another 5 ft. for two <br />sidewalks. He concluded that with respect to custom homes, he <br />would like to see something more specific as to a proposed design <br />and cited the example of "ranch style" which has been used <br />further south on Foothill Road. <br /> <br />commissioner Horan stated he is happy with the project and <br />praised staff and the developer for working out all the issues <br />and the mitigation measures without the extra expense of an EIR. <br />He said he felt comfortable that all issues have been properly <br />addressed. <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued as to street connections. Chairman <br />Mahern noted that these issues will be addressed at the tentative <br />map stage. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright felt that the use of stucco should be allowed <br />and that it is a good fire retardant. He agreed with the <br />applicant in regard to Condition 2g and felt that 4,500 sq. ft. <br />is too restrictive for the size of lot. In regard to a lighting <br />plan, he thought some criteria should be worked up for the whole <br />area. In regard to Condition 10, he would favor putting an <br />insulated redwood box around the backflow devices which would <br />disguise them while protecting them from freezing in the winter. <br />Mr. swift responded that the fire department and staff cannot <br />support a box around the backflow devices as they would be too <br />large and too cumbersome. <br /> <br />The Commission agreed that lot 12 could be dropped to 28,000 sq. <br />ft. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Hovingh, seconded by <br />Commissioner Michelotti recommending approval of the Negative <br />Declaration prepared for Case PUD-90-19 inasmuch as project <br /> <br />MINUTES PLlUlIfIIIG COIIIIISSIOII FBBRUARY 27, 1991 Page 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.