My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 031208
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
PC 031208
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:36:51 PM
Creation date
11/26/2008 11:50:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/12/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NAME
03/12/08
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
the Commission had the opportunity to clarify, she suggested that be done if the Planning <br />Commission were so inclined. <br />Ms. Decker agreed with Ms. Harryman that this was a good opportunity to clarify the language. <br />Chair Blank noted that the condition of approval should be modified to state that no construction <br />work on State or Federal holidays would be allowed. <br />Commissioner O'Connor recalled that the applicant stated he did not want light to go in or out of <br />the tennis court and inquired whether that was included in the plans. Ms. Decker replied that the <br />plans called for opaque glazing and added that a condition could be included for clarification. <br />The false opaque windows were merely decorative to avoid a blank wall. <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Pearce regarding whether the language in Condition <br />No. 2 could be modified to further restrict the issue of reflectivity of the PV panels in order to <br />ease the neighbors' concerns, Ms. Decker replied that staff attempted to not require the applicant <br />to return to the Planning Commission should it be found that the PV panels could not go in the <br />well. She noted that the applicant indicated that they had no intent of installing reflective panels, <br />and they were conditioned that they could not be higher than the parapet walls. It was her <br />experience that if they were designed on grade, they were on a 1:12 slope, which was fairly flat. <br />Ms. Decker noted that under Condition No. 1, staff referenced Exhibit A and added that the <br />Planning Commission had spent considerable time trying to capture all of the studies contained <br />in Exhibit A. She noted that the tree survey and an updated letter were not part of it and would <br />be enumerated in the next draft. <br />Commissioner Pearce moved to approve PDR-623 subject to the conditions of approval as <br />listed in Exhibit B of the staff report, with the following modifications that: <br />1. Conditions Nos. 4 and 18 be combined; and <br />2. Condition No. 30 be modified to include language that in addition to Federal <br />holidays, no construction be allowed on State holidays and on Saturdays and <br />Sundays. <br />Commissioner Fox seconded the motion. <br />Chair Blank inquired whether if the Planning Director allowed construction activity to start early <br />on a weekday because of excessive heat and if a complaint were received from a neighbor, the <br />Planning Director would stop the construction activity. Ms. Decker replied that was correct and, <br />furthermore, depending upon the sensitivity, staff has required a minimum of 24-hour notice <br />prior to the requested exception. That would enable staff or the contractor to contact the <br />neighbors for their permission. <br />Chair Blank noted that the language stated that "the Planning Director may... "rather than <br />"shall." Ms. Decker replied that the language could be changed to read "shall," which would be <br />the case if there were any complaints. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 12, 2008 Page 15 of 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.