My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 011409
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
PC 011409
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:39:22 PM
Creation date
3/20/2009 2:48:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/14/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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 Fox commented that three cars could also be placed on an empty lot. <br />Mr. Babbitt noted thatthe design guidelines and the CC&R's would not allow such <br />things. <br />Commissioner Blank noted that staff report states that Lots 2 through 5 are less than <br />one acre each and inquired what the acreage of each of the lots are. Mr. Babbitt <br />replied that the acreages were noted on the site plan as 1.25, 0.76, 0.76, and 1.42. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />Chair Pearce proposed that the Commission review the questions. She inquired if <br />there would be a benefit to separating Question 1, "Would the Planning Commission <br />support a General Plan amendment to allow an increase in the density allocated for <br />the subject site?"and Question 2, "Would the Planning Commission support an <br />amendment to the Happy Valley Specific Plan which would allow an increase in the <br />density allocated for the subject site?"and Ms. Decker replied that they could be <br />combined. <br />Commissioner O'Connorstated that he had participated in the firstwork session and <br />has not changed his mind and would not support an amendment to the General Plan <br />and Specific Plan. He noted that there has been a lot of discussion regarding <br />wanting to be consistent with adjacent development, and he did not think putting six <br />lots on six acres was anywhere near consistent. He added that the other parcels <br />might be under one acre. He stated that the Serenity Terrace project has 12 lots, <br />but it has much more than 24 acres, thereby developing less than one house per two <br />acres. With respect to people not wanting to fully landscape two acres, he indicated <br />that he did not think this should necessarily happen. He noted that the golf course is <br />in a rural area, and there are horses on the trails along the golf course. He added <br />that he personally does not have a problem with horses being out there. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that an option would be to create cone-acre lot and <br />to move three lots there, and then have another open space piece in there. He <br />noted that part of the lot rises up to Serenity Terrace and that the lots are not all flat. <br />He indicated that he would not be opposed to having three one-acre lots and having <br />some additional open space. <br />Commissioner O'Connorstated that he did not think that other developments not <br />having used all of their capacity means they should be given to another <br />development. He noted that any units not used can be put in multiple locations in <br />the Downtown or near the BART station. He stated that he did not think this was an <br />argument for building more density in the Happy Valley area and that he did not <br />want to set a precedence. <br />Commissioner Narum stated she supported the General Plan and Specific Plan <br />Amendment. She indicated that she thought that this might have been an <br />unintended consequence of the Happy Valley Specific Plan. She noted that she felt <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 14, 2009 Page 22 of 35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.