My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 022708
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
PC 022708
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:36:44 PM
Creation date
11/26/2008 11:42:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/27/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 022708
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
Commissioner Narum agreed with Commissioner Olson's comments and would support <br />Condition No. 23 with some modifications. She wanted to ensure that the costs would be <br />covered if they exceeded the estimates by 25 percent. She inquired whether it would be <br />possible to move the Brosozkys' lot lower, which would take care of the easement issue <br />with respect to developing his property. <br />Acting Chair Pearce did not believe that could be addressed at this time and that it would <br />require a Specific Plan Amendment. <br />Ms. Decker noted that it was not within the authority of the Commission at this time to <br />condition this project with a revision of a Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan home <br />site location on the Brozosky property. She added that the Planning Commission and <br />City Council have engaged in discussions as projects moved through the process with <br />those properties developing within the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan that the <br />locations are considered conceptual, and this would likely be the same consideration with <br />regard to the Brozosky development at the time it may develop. Staff would be happy to <br />engage in these discussions with Mr. Brozosky as well at the time he planned to develop <br />his property. <br />Acting Chair Pearce believed it would be cleaner and more sensible for the Chrismans to <br />give up their interest in the well. She agreed with Commissioner Olson that the City <br />could not compel that action. She believed that the Chrismans had a vested ownership <br />right in the land, that the parties can agree to that action, and that the Chrismans can offer <br />to give it up. Both parties indicated that they were more comfortable with the plan <br />crafted by City Council in 2003 than Option 2 as recommended by staff. She would <br />favor a motion that followed the original City Council compromise. <br />Commissioner Fox suggested modifying Condition No. 23 with mutual wording that did <br />not compel and encouraged the applicant to consider relinquishing the easement rights to <br />the well on the Brosozky property. <br />Acting Chair Pearce believed it was preferable to have more direct language in the <br />resolutions that would direct the City to take a specific action, rather than language more <br />suitable for a General Plan. <br />Commissioner O'Connor understood that the legal language existed that it was within the <br />City's purview to compel. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 27, 2008 Page 10 of 26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.