My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 072705
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
PC 072705
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 3:21:31 PM
Creation date
3/9/2006 9:45:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/27/2005
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 072705
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
has a 1.7c1 ratio and is incapable of supporting more trees than the 16 that have been <br />proposed_ <br />Ms. Decker restated stafhs recommendation for the project in an infill lot 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 ahigh-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 1 1 , <br />2005, and the peer review recommendations_ <br />Commissioner Pearce indicated that she had read the May ] 1 , 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 roolline, 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 11, 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 if it 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 1 of his report; however, staff did not request a photo montage of the streetscape_ <br />Acting Chairperson Arkin stated that the reason for the streetscape was for the <br />Commission to see the ~riassing difference between the project and the Oxsen house_ <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED_ <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 2005 Page 24 of 3 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.