My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 06:155
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2006
>
SR 06:155
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/3/2007 2:58:15 PM
Creation date
6/2/2006 10:32:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/6/2006
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 06:155
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
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 />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSTAIN: <br />RECUSED: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Commissioners Arkin, Blank, Fox, O'Connor, and Olson. <br />None. <br />None. <br />None. <br />Commissioner Pearce. <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC-2006-27 was entered and adopted as motioned. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank moved to find that the proposed PUD development is <br />environmentally superior and is consistent with the General Plan and the Vineyard Avenue <br />Corridor Specific Plan, to make the PUD findings as listed in the staff report, and to <br />recommend approval to the City Council of Case PUD-S4, subject to the conditions of <br />approval listed on Exhibit B of the staff report, as recommended by staff, with the <br />modifications to the conditions included in the various staff memos to the Commission and <br />the provision that Condition No. 7.d. be reworded to allow some expansion ofthe <br />Designated Development Areas for Lots 1 and 3, subject to the approval of the Planning <br />Director. <br />Commissioner Olson seconded the motion. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fox indicated that she liked the development plan but could support the PUD only <br />for two out of the five houses to be two stories. She stated that she could not support having all <br />five houses above the 540-foot elevation to be two stories without first seeing the photo montage <br />and the design gnidelines for the homes. She added that she also had difficulty in making the <br />finding that the PUD is consistent with the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank stated that he was not concerned about whether the houses are one or two <br />stories as long as there are no visual impacts, the neighbors are contented, and there are no <br />environmental impacts. He noted that the designs are coming back to the Commission and that <br />allowing for two-story homes does not mean that the Commission will have to approve the <br />two-story designs if these are found to be inconsistent with the environment or if views impacts <br />are present. <br /> <br />Commissioner O'Connor noted that a maximum floor area ratio is aJlowed for each of the <br />homes, and the 20 percent to be included in the second story, which would be only two feet <br />higher, would be deducted from the area of the pad itself, thus holding down the size of the <br />footprint and consequently taking up less of the environment. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSTAIN: <br />RECUSED: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Commissioners Arkin, Blank, O'Connor, and Olson. <br />Commissioner Fox. <br />None. <br />None. <br />Commissioner Pearce. <br /> <br />Page8of9 <br /> <br />DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 24, 2006 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.