My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 05:258
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2005
>
SR 05:258
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/16/2005 12:13:13 PM
Creation date
9/15/2005 4:44:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
9/20/2005
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 05:258
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
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
<br /> ATIACHMENT 4 <br /> MEMORANDUM <br />Date: July 21, 2005 <br />To: Planning Commissioners <br />From: Donna Decker, Principal Planner <br />Subject: PUD-37. Winter Planned Unit Develovment <br /> Application to rezone a 0.26 acre infill development site from RM-15 to PUD-HDR and <br /> allow the construction offour (4) single family detached residential units and two (2) <br /> attached multi-family residential units located at 520 St. John Street <br />Honorable Commissioners, <br />On May II, 2005 Case No. PUD-37 was continued to allow time to bring back additional information to <br />the Planning Commission for consideration of this project. The Commission continued to have concerns <br />related to architectural design, affordability, and the loss of the black walnut tree. The Commission <br />requested the project be subject to peer review and had interest in having the Housing Commission <br />provide comment. The Commissioners had the following comments: <br /> . Chairperson Maas did not mind the tandem parking, expressed that a peer review would <br /> be beneficial and suggested Commissioner Arkin bring the project to the Housing <br /> Commission; <br /> . Commissioner Arkin expressed support to have the Housing Commission comment on the <br /> project and had some concem regarding the density of the number of units per acre being <br /> proposed; <br /> . Commissioner Blank expressed that the architecture did not seem distinct enough, that the <br /> roof slopes should be evaluated, had concem regarding the proposed number of units, felt <br /> that the duplex parking should perhaps have garages and that those be conditioned for <br /> parking only, and that any trees destroyed should be replaced and pay a mitigation fee; <br /> . Commissioner Roberts expressed concern about the architecture, that the roof slopes were <br /> too similar, and that the black walnut would be removed but recognized it could not be <br /> transplanted, was a messy tree in a residential area, very large for the site even if the <br /> number of units were decreased and confirmed a conversation with Mike Fulford that if it <br /> were saved, it would likely decline and cause real property damage to the new residences, <br /> adjacent residences and potentially within the street due to limbs breaking and falling, <br /> etc; <br /> . Commissioner Fox supported the project as it was presented, expressed that the project <br /> did represent the downtown character and that the architecture was compatible with the <br /> surrounding area and did not support the project review by the Housing Commission <br /> because the project was not subject to the Inclusionary Zoning Code. <br />U:\PUD-37_72105 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.