My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 07/13/88
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
PC 07/13/88
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 11:23:52 AM
Creation date
4/13/2007 4:11:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/13/1988
DOCUMENT NAME
PC071388
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
The public hearing was closed. <br />Commissioner Hovingh asked Mr. Swift to comment regarding PUD <br />rules and height limitations. Mr. Swift did so, adding that <br />staff has recently argued for single-story especially on corner <br />Lots. This has not been done in earlier projects. Staff has <br />been working with developers regarding the height of structures, <br />stressing at least a mix of one and two-story homes. <br />Chairman Hoyt commented that it appeared that in 1985 <br />Dr. Connolly had requested restrictions as a compromise. <br />However, after testimony it seemed there would be a tendency to <br />overcrowd the area. He stated he could not support the <br />application in that regard. <br />Commissioner Mahern said she could not support the application <br />and felt there had been many compromises in the past. She would <br />like to explore how to bring the PUD back and look at those <br />rules more closely. <br />Commissioner Tarver agreed with Commissioner Mahern`s comments. <br />He felt that Dr. Connolly had made an effort at a good project <br />and felt it was a difficult area to develop. He would like to <br />see more than just the elimination of this major modification <br />and appreciated the fact that Commission and Council could admit <br />that an error in judgment might have been made and wished to <br />rectify that. <br />Commissioner Herger commended the applicant on preserving the <br />Heritage trees. She stated she had supported the original plan <br />of no more than 16, but could not support the proposed two-story <br />homes as presented tonight. <br />Commissioner Hovingh commented that he had visited the site. He <br />commended the applicant for preserving the oak tree, but could <br />see no reason to change the restriction to 25` in order to <br />accommodate two-story homes. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Tarver, seconded by <br />Commissioner Mahern denying Case PUD-85-21-2M. <br />ROLL CALL_VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Herger, Hovingh, Mahern, Tarver, and <br />Chairman Hoyt <br />NOES: None <br />APSENT: Commissioner Michelotti <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />Resolution No. PC-88-82 was entered and adopted denying Case <br />PUD-85-21-2M as motioned. <br />The applicant was advised that he had 15 days in which to appeal <br />the case to City Council. <br />Page 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.