My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
17 ATTACHMENT 07
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
050608
>
17 ATTACHMENT 07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/1/2008 1:08:06 PM
Creation date
5/1/2008 1:08:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
5/6/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
17 ATTACHMENT 07
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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).
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Narum believed that placement would help them as well. <br />Commissioner O'Connor believed that would require the applicants to start over. <br />Chair Blank noted that the Planning Commission had along-standing tradition of including a <br />condition of fire suppression systems and believed that should be included in the conditions of <br />approval. <br />Commissioner Olson echoed Commissioner O'Connor's comments about landscaping versus <br />solid fencing and would like the Commission to look at Condition No. 9 of Exhibit C of the staff <br />report. He believed it would apply to the property line on the northern line and inquired whether <br />that condition should apply to the other property lines involved here as well. He would like to <br />see a change that involved further use of the landscaped screen and leave the fencing the way it <br />was. He noted that he would support a change to Condition No. 9 to include landscaping along <br />the rear sloped bank. <br />Mr. Otto noted that staff did not include a requirement along that side and was concerned that <br />any additional screening landscaping would impact Mr. Nguyen's concerns with views over the <br />fence. He understood that the applicant intended to landscape in that area, but staff did not <br />require it. He noted that there were restrictions in place for height of landscape materials. <br />Commissioner Olson noted that since the landscaping would grow, he might not need to suggest <br />a change to Condition No. 9. <br />In response to an inquiry by Chair Blank regarding Saturday construction, Mr. Otto replied that <br />the matter had been discussed at the Zoning Administrator hearing. He added that it had been <br />brought up by the Zoning Administrator and that some neighbors worked on the weekend and <br />felt that Saturday hours would impact them. Ms. Santiago noted that some homeowners <br />purposely scheduled construction on the weekend so they could be present to supervise. The <br />Zoning Administrator decided to keep the Saturday hours for that reason. <br />Commissioner Pearce moved to deny PAP-117, thereby upholding the decision of the <br />Zoning Administrator approving PADR-1762, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit C, <br />with the addition of a condition that an automatic lire sprinkler be installed in the <br />structure, and to recommend approval of PUD-99-09-02M to the City Council, subject to <br />the conditions shown in Exhibit D. <br />Commissioner Pearce noted that she believed the applicant had made a reasonable effort to <br />mollify the neighbors' concerns by reducing the massing and the height. In addition, the <br />applicant had worked with the HOA's Architectural Review Board, and while she understood the <br />appellants' concerns, there was no view easement and no right to a view. With respect to the <br />CC&R', she believed the City should not be involved in such a private agreement between <br />parties. <br />Commissioner Olson seconded the motion. <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 12, 2008 Page 5 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.