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 /> has a 1.7: I ratio and is incapable of supporting more trees than the 16 that have been <br /> proposed. <br /> Ms. Decker restated staff's recommendation for the project in an infilllot within the <br /> Downtown Specific Plan Area. She recommended that the Commission find the PUD <br /> development plan to be consistent with the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and <br /> the purposes of the PUD ordinance; find that the Environmental Impact Report for the <br /> Downtown Specific Plan anticipated that a high-density residential project would be <br /> located on the site, and, therefore, no other environmental documentation is required; <br /> make the PUD findings as presented in the staff report; and recommend to the City <br /> Council approval of the project for rezoning and development plan approval, subject to <br /> the conditions of the staff report as modified by the Commission's conditions on May 11, <br /> 2005, and the peer review recommendations. <br /> Commissioner Pearce indicated that she had read the May II, 2005 staff report and <br /> minutes for this application and would be able to participate in the discussion and vote on <br /> the project. <br /> Commissioner Roberts inquired why Mr. Winter included photos of houses on Birdland. <br /> Ms. Decker replied that the photos graphically show that in that area, there are two-story <br /> residences that are approximately the same distance apart as those proposed here. <br /> In response to Commissioner Blank's comment that the peer review did not address the <br /> "cookie-cutter" appearance of the roofline, Ms. Decker replied that Mr. Cannon believed <br /> the appearance of the roof looked fine and in character with the neighborhood. <br /> In response to Commissioner Blank's inquiry about whether there was a color board and <br /> how colors were determined, Ms. Decker replied that during the design review process, <br /> staff works with the applicant to look at what colors would work well with the design. <br /> She indicated that these colors were presented to the Commission at the May II, 2005 <br /> meeting, and no request be made that they be brought back. She added that it would be <br /> within the Commission's purview to discuss the colors at this time ifit so desired. <br /> Commissioner Roberts indicated that she had requested that the streetscape be considered <br /> by the peer reviewer, comparing these houses next to the Oxsen residence, and this was <br /> not addressed in the review. <br /> Ms. Decker apologized for the misunderstanding that this request was not communicated <br /> to Mr. Cannon. She noted that Mr. Cannon had included a photo of the Oxsen house on <br /> page I of his report; however, staff did not request a photo montage ofthe streetscape. <br /> Acting Chairperson Arkin stated that the reason for the streetscape was for the <br /> Commission to see the massing difference between the project and the Oxsen house. <br /> THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 2005 Page 24 of31 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.