My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 051006
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
PC 051006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 3:24:07 PM
Creation date
7/12/2007 9:30:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/10/2006
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 051006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
~ business agreement for the property between the City and the private property developer, <br />which would probably exist until the project was put out to bid. He believed the <br />cooperative efforts would not be impacted significantly following the decisions made at <br />this meeting. <br />Ms. Decker added that that portion of the project approval for the road could be pulled <br />from the Remick PUD if necessary. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br />Mazy Roberts, 1666 Frog Hill Lane, noted that she did not object to the moving of the <br />water tank or to the tank itself. She was concerned about Commissioner Blank's question <br />and noted that when items are moved around within a Specific Plan, a finding might be <br />made that it was an environmentally superior place to put the tank, not just the most <br />attractive place to put it. She did not object to the alignment of the road and noted that it <br />was narrow and in poor repair. She noted that in hillside development, the driveways did <br />not need to be level. <br />Steve Brozosky, 1 Brozosky Hill Lane, noted that he did not have any issues with the <br />tank; however, he expressed concern with the hours of construction provided by <br />Condition No. 19 allowing construction work from Monday through Saturday from <br />8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He noted that the Specific Plan did allow for Monday through <br />Saturday but that PUD approvals have limited the hours to Monday through Friday from <br />(' 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. due to noise issues. He requested that the hours of approval be <br />limited to weekdays only. <br />The applicants for Item 6.f. arrived at this point. <br />Chairperson Arkin called afive-minute recess at 8:30 p.m. He indicated that Item 6.f. <br />would be heard after the recess and that the public hearing for Item 6.e. would remain <br />open for continued discussion later in the evening. <br />Chairperson Arkin reconvened the meeting at 8:35 p.m. <br />f. PUD-50/PTR-7721. Ponderosa Homes <br />Work session to review and receive comment on an application to subdivide an <br />approximately 19.83-acre site into 28 lots and to construct 26 new, one- and <br />two-story single-family detached homes ranging in size from 3,908 squaze feet to <br />4,595 square feet located at 3157 Trenery Drive and 2313 Martin Avenue. <br />Zoning for the property is PUD-LDR (Planned Unit Development -Low Density <br />Residential) District. <br />Ms. Decker summarized the staff report and described the history, layout, and scope of <br />this project. She noted that traffic calming was a significant issue, and staff had been <br />directed to request that the developer look into providing a curvilinear alignment along <br />f.-. Cameron Avenue. Staff did not support creating a double frontage lot that would take <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 10, 2006 Page 9 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.