CCMIN040505 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Brozosky asked staff to provide an annual report on problems associated with any of the businesses in town that need to be rectified. Mr. Fialho said that between the Police and Planning Departments, staff could prepare a report that addresses Council's concerns. Staff needs to give some thought to this and will suggest a process. Mayor Hosterman believed the Pleasanton Downtown Association should be involved in this process. 6._~c PUD-98-16-3M1 David Bo;lstad, Loving & Campos Architects, and Jeff WoodsI Black Mountain Development. (SR 05:092) Application for a PUD major modification to modify design guidelines and review processes for the future homes of the Mariposa Ranch development by the Callippe Preserve Golf Course. Zoning for the property is PUD-GC and LDR (Planned Unit Development - Golf Coume and Low Density Residential) District. Mr. Iserson presented the staff report. Mr. Sullivan asked if the color standards are similar to Pleasanton Ridge. Mr. Iserson said the color standards are similar to Pleasanton Ridge. These color guidelines try and tailor the permissible colors more to the style of the homes. He believed these standards are more flexible than those color standards for Pleasanton Ridge. The color standards for this development provide the developers a chance to come up with a building type that is reflected in the detailing and colors. These homes could conceivably be more of the earth tones similar to the Ridge because the homes are visible. Staff will provide photomontages that it has approved to the Planning Commission. Mr. Sullivan asked what the time period is for appeals. Mr. Iserson said there is a 15-day period allowed for appeals. Ms. McGovern noted that one of the Planning Commissioners opposed the application for the PUD major modification to modify the design guidelines and review processes for the future homes of the Mariposa Ranch development. She asked staff for background information. Mr. Iserson believed the Planning Commissioner who opposed the matter had some concerns regarding the appeal period. She wanted sufficient time allowed and an opportunity for the Planning Commission to appeal an action by staff if the Commission had concerns. He believed the Planning Commission discussed this issue, and the majority of the Commissioners felt comfortable that the 15- day appeal period and the manner in which they would be receiving the approved plans would be satisfactory. Ms. McGovern deferred to Mr. Sullivan as a previous Planning Commissioner and asked for his opinion. Mr. Sullivan believed the 15-day appeal period did not seem like sufficient time to appeal a PUD major modification, as the appeal period is 15-days from the approval of the PUD and sometimes notification is not received for one week. Pleasanton City Council 18 04/05/05 Minutes