My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 05/13/1998
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
PC 05/13/1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:00:54 PM
Creation date
10/7/2008 9:30:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/13/1998
DOCUMENT NAME
05/13/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
In response to a question by Chair Cooper relating to the need for separate addresses for the units, <br />Mr. Iserson noted that it would only be necessary if it were used as a rental unit. <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED <br />Norman Soares, Standard Pacific, 3825 Hopyard, Suite 195, represented the applicant. He stated that <br />he is in agreement with the staff report and all conditions of approval. <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED <br />Commissioner Roberts commented that since the proposed units would be so intimately integrated into <br />the main home, she does not feel the owners would rent out the units to unknown persons. She feels <br />they would be used mainly for a nanny, parents, or older children of the owners. <br />Commissioner Sullivan expressed concern with approving the application until the pending ordinance <br />is approved. He also expressed concern with the potential increase in traffic on Foothill Road caused <br />by these units. In addition, he noted that the subject homes are adjacent to the urban growth boundary <br />line, and the General Plan encourages lower density uses adjacent to that boundary. He feels that the <br />existing development is too high in intensity adjacent to the urban growth boundary line, and that <br />adding the secondary units would just make that problem worse. He also commented that the <br />development has already been approved without the secondary units. Finally, Commissioner Sullivan <br />stated that since Oak Tree Farms is such a small development, he feels that all property owners should <br />have <br />been included in the public notice. <br />Commissioner Maas stated that she was in support of the application, although she suggested asking <br />the builder to trellis the secondary unit parking space next to the garage. <br />Commissioner Kumaran stated that since the application meets all State guidelines and since the <br />conditions are so well defined, he is in support of the application. He also explained to Commissioner <br />Sullivan the reasons for the Commission directing staff to draft an ordinance relating to secondary use <br />permits. <br />Chair Cooper stated that he somewhat agrees that the proposed units would have a very minimal <br />impact on density, although he does not feel that warrants a denial of the application since it's only <br />two units and they serve a good function. He, therefore, supported staff's recommendations and <br />conditions of approval. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Kumaran, seconded by Commissioner Maas, <br />recommending approval of UP-98-11, subject to the separate conditions of approval for each <br />respective residence. <br />Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 13, 1998 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.