My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 011007
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
PC 011007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 3:28:53 PM
Creation date
8/17/2007 10:04:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/10/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
<br />Commissioner O’Connor expressed concern that everything would look alike if all the <br />chimneys were made of stone. He would support darkening the color of the arrestors so <br />they were not shiny or white. <br /> <br />Ms. Giffin noted that the chimneys could be made of brick, and added that Lot 3 <br />appeared to have a stone chimney. <br /> <br />Mr. Aminian indicated that they would support the Planning Commission’s proposed <br />changes. He reiterated that on Lot 1, he would like to lower the roof pitch by 1.5 feet and <br />lower the grade under the house by two feet. He also reiterated that he wants to build the <br />Clara Lane extension first in order to bring the utilities in before building on Lots 2 <br />and 3; Lot 1 would be last. He believed Delco Builders would have some information <br />about the Clara Lane extension. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson requested further clarification regarding Condition No. 73, and a <br />3:1 slope versus a 2:1 slope, as well as discussion about retaining walls. Ms. Giffin <br />replied that staff recommended that the slope go to 3:1, unless that was not feasible for an <br />unforeseen reason such as geotechnical constraints. The Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan <br />recommended that the slope be 3:1, which would necessitate the installation of two <br />retaining walls. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank moved to find that there are no new or changed circumstances <br />or information that require additional CEQA review of the project and that the <br />proposed PUD development is consistent with the General Plan, the Vineyard <br />Corridor Specific Plan, and the purposes of the PUD ordinance; to make the <br />PUD findings listed in the staff report; and to recommend approval of Case PUD-56, <br />subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B of the staff report as <br />recommended by staff, with the modification that a disclosure be made that animals <br />live near the property and may create noise, odor, and other impacts; that the grade <br />under the house on Lot 1 be dug down by two feet and the roof be lowered by <br />1.5 feet; and that construction-related equipment and vehicles come to and from the <br />site between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. only. <br />Commissioner O’Connor seconded the motion. <br /> <br />Chairperson Fox requested an amendment to the motion that the driveway leading <br />to Lot 1 be a color and material which blend in with the hillsides, with the color and <br />material subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director, that the <br />chimney materials on each lot be different from one another and from the main <br />exterior body material of the house and that the spark arrestors blend in with the <br />color of the chimney, with the colors and materials subject to the review and <br /> <br />approval of the Planning Director <br /> <br />Chairperson Fox would like the orientation of the middle house to be changed so the <br />garage would be rotated 90 degrees to reduce the mass of the house. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 2007 Page 9 of 27 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.