My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 11/28/84
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
PC 11/28/84
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:28:46 AM
Creation date
4/26/2007 5:00:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/28/1984
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 11/28/84
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
Minutes <br />Planning Commissio. <br />11/28/84 <br />a five foot P.S.E to the south. He reviewed the rendering on the <br />wall. <br />Commissioner Lindsey asked about the lighting. Mr. Goldsworthy <br />indicated security lighting would be installed. <br />Commissioner Innes asked about the cut and fill for the proposal. <br />Mr. Goldsworthy reviewed the topography explaining that there <br />will be approximately four feet cut and four feet filled. He <br />addressed noise concerns indicating that they will be taking <br />precautions with regard to noise and provide double or triple <br />glazing off of Sunol Boulevard. <br />Bob Grove, 5555 San Jose Drive, thanked Martin Inderbitzen, and <br />Savco for meeting with everyone. They are happy that the access <br />has been changed as it will significant reduce the problems on <br />Monaco Drive. If staff is satisfied that parking is adequate, <br />they will go along with it but there seems to be some confusion <br />as to how many parking spaces would be adequate for 40 units to <br />ensure there will not be a major problem. Regarding the roofing <br />material, they still feel shake would be more in keeping with the <br />neighborhood. <br />The pubic hearing was closed. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Lindsey, seconded by <br />Commissioner Getty that the mitigated negative declaration of <br />environmental impacts prepared for case PUD-84-16 be recommended <br />for adoption inasmuch as conditions imposed on project approval <br />would reduce any potentially significant environmental effects to <br />an insignificant level. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES• Commissioners Getty, Innes, Lindsey, <br />• Wellman and Chairman Doherty <br />NOE5: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN• Commissioner Wilson <br />Resolution No. 2570 was entered and adopted recommending approval <br />of the mitigated negative declaration prepared for PUD-84-16 as <br />motioned. <br />Commissioner Innes asked if Condition No. 5 should be changed. <br />Mr. Harris indicated it should remain inasmuch as Monaco Drive <br />would be used for loading and unloading. Commissioner Innes had <br />a concern with lack of lighting of this area. He was more in <br />favor of shake roofing vs composition roofing material. <br />Commissioner Getty felt the roof being proposed is aesthetically <br />pleasing and probably wears better than shake. Commissioner <br />Lindsey could support the roof that the applicant is proposing <br />and feels strongly about considering safety factors. <br />Aesthetically there is not that much of a difference. <br />- 4 - <br />____ _ _ _. _ . it <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.