My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 08/28/1991
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
PC 08/28/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2017 4:19:46 PM
Creation date
6/8/2005 12:23:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/28/1991
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 08/28/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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 />Application continued to September 11, 1991. <br /> <br />PUD-81-30-52D. Simature Prouerties <br />Application for design review approval for the construction of 151 townhouse and <br />condominium dwelling units on an approximately 12.46 acre site located at 5700 west <br />Las Positas Boulevard (Lot 24A of the Hacienda Business Park). Zoning for the <br />property is PUD (Planned Unit Development) - HDR (High Density Residential) District. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson presented the staff report and recommended approval of Case <br />52D subject to the conditions of the staff report. <br /> <br />PUD-81-30- <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh referred to landscaping and screening after getting to the stub streets, <br />and asked for clarification. Commissioner Michelotti advised that the Design Review Board <br />had recommended either a combination of hedges or a low solid wall. Mr. Iserson also <br />recollected that height of wall or hedge would be 2 1/2 to 3 ft. in order to screen on-coming <br />headlights. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk asked Mr. Iserson if there will be lighting on the walkways and if <br />the tot lot will be fenced in. Mr. Iserson responded that the intent is to have ground level <br />lighting. He added that generally a tot lot is fenced in, but he was not sure if this one is. <br />However, it could be conditioned in that manner. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk asked about access to the rear yards. Mr. Iserson explained that the <br />rear yards are basically open yards with a concrete patio. <br />Commissioner Horan asked if the brick paving accent is included in this project as it was in <br />the Summerhill plan. Mr. Iserson responded that this plan no longer contains that condition. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright discussed Condition 12 with Mr. Iserson and wondered why Standard <br />Conditions of Approval nos. 7, 12-14, 29, and 33 were no longer included. Mr. Iserson <br />replied that Condition 12 is no longer an applicable program, as PG&E no longer runs the <br />program indicated. Developers will still make use of available energy savers; however, the <br />programs are just no longer in operation. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br />Mark Sweeney, 4309 Hacienda Drive, represented the application, along with five members <br />of his team. He gave a brief overview of the project, noting that the main difference <br />between this project and the previously approved Summerhill project was the selling price of <br />the units. Summerhill units were projected to be in the $325,000 to $375,000 range whereas <br />Signature units are projected at $200,000 to $250,000 per unit. He thanked staff for time <br />spent with them and felt the report was complete. <br /> <br />Minutes Planning ea..ission <br />August 28, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 15 <br /> <br />I. <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.