My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 031412
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
PC 031412
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 2:38:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/14/2012
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 Blank noted that this is obviously still a workshop but he thinks it might <br />be useful to actually see the property and would like to arrange for a site visit up into <br />those areas. He noted that he drove up toward there but he did not actually get on the <br />property. <br />Chair Pentin stated that what he is hearing from the Commission is that man -made <br />slopes of 25 percent should be covered by Measure PP, but maybe there is an <br />exception in this particular case that could be considered. <br />4. Does the Planning Commission believe that the grade differentials between <br />lots should be reduced with the use of split -pad lots, stepped foundations, <br />and /or terraced lots? <br />Commissioner Blank inquired if there is any disadvantage in doing that. <br />Chair Pentin stated that the applicant has indicated that flat pads were best and they <br />want that. He asked staff to weigh in on this. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that staff is not necessarily recommending one way or another; staff <br />just does not want the Commission to be surprised if the plan stays that way and there <br />are retaining walls when it comes back. He noted that there was a trend at one point <br />where staff wanted everything on a split level to try and conform the house to the grade, <br />but the reality is, sometimes those create more prominent and more visible homes, as <br />opposed to on a flat pad, a little bit of the house gets cut in, it sits down inside the <br />ground a little bit, and it does not protrude as much. He added that if there are pads <br />and they are next to each other and they step, the depth gets lost because they are next <br />to one another and the back corner is not visible. He noted that this is a choice, and the <br />applicant has made a proposal that will require some retaining walls, the reason for <br />doing that being that they do not have a great deal of area to work with due to the <br />limitation provided by Measure PP and the 25 percent. <br />Commissioner Blank stated that he thinks it kind of comes down to a common sense <br />thing. He noted that thinking back to some of the specific plans where two -story homes <br />are not permitted, the Commission has had to consider and allowed single -story homes <br />that were actually taller than two -story homes, and two -story homes that were actually <br />shorter than the surrounding one -story homes. He indicated that it seems to him that to <br />say "blanket" they are all going to be flat pads or they all ought to be split pads is not the <br />right thing to do. He added that he thinks it has to be a combination based on staff's <br />judgment and the developer's judgment about what fits best where to minimize the <br />impact on the hills. He indicated that he would defer that to staff to work into the <br />planning process. <br />Commissioner Pearce agreed. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that he thinks a lot of it would also depend on the <br />topography, such that if it might be all right to grade if it's a three- or four -foot grade, but <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 14, 2012 Page 30 of 35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.