My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
5_Exhibits A-G
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2020
>
05-27
>
5_Exhibits A-G
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/20/2020 3:27:16 PM
Creation date
5/20/2020 3:26:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
5/27/2020
Document Relationships
5
(Message)
Path:
\BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\AGENDA PACKETS\2020 - PRESENT\2020\05-27
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
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
Vice Chair Brown asked if there was an entitlement to a separate garage. <br /> Ms. Clark stated the guidelines did not restrict the location of accessory structures. <br /> Commissioner Allen inquired whether the new ADU laws would allow development anywhere <br /> on the lot. <br /> Assistant City Attorney Julie Harryman explained that the new ADU laws allowed four-foot rear <br /> and side yard setbacks. <br /> Commissioner Allen clarified that ADU laws allowed building anywhere. <br /> In response to Commissioner Pace, Ms. Harryman confirmed that the new laws still only <br /> allowed one home and one ADU. Commissioner Pace asked if the applicant would be bound <br /> by current approval if the ADU law changed. <br /> Vice Chair Brown stated State law would prevail. He summarized the Commission's <br /> consensus that it was amenable to the proposed lots, size, shape, and location. He inquired if <br /> the Commission agreed with Lot 1 and 5 and the lot line location and suggested that a <br /> discussion regarding amenities would be appropriate under different circumstances. <br /> Commissioner Pace inquired who was responsible for the trail along Dale Way. <br /> Ms. Soo responded that it would be the property owner's responsibility. <br /> Vice Chair Brown stated that Dale Way would be the new preferred route for the trail, which <br /> was an amenity. <br /> Commissioner Allen inquired about additional units being created and an expected amenity. <br /> She discussed the statement in the NSSP requiring a quid pro quo. <br /> Ms. Clark explained that the City could not arbitrarily require amenities without a nexus and <br /> explained negotiations related to additional amenities. <br /> Vice Chair Brown asked staff's recommendation on amenities for a four- or five-lot project. <br /> Ms. Clark stated they did not have a recommendation and asked the Planning Commission's <br /> input on the currently proposed amenity for a donation to the cemetery. <br /> Commissioner Allen stated she did not feel the contribution was enough and suggested a trail- <br /> oriented contribution. She stated she was potentially open to two lots, but she was concerned <br /> that it would not have the right feel. She agreed with the smaller size of Lot 1 due to Dale Way. <br /> She suggested a larger country, cottage type house, 1,500-2,000 square feet, with a one or <br /> two car garage on a smaller pad set to the furthest northeast portion of the lot. <br /> Commissioner Pace responded that he also felt a larger contribution should be made, <br /> something to help maintain trails. He expressed concern about the size and massing of the <br /> proposed structure. <br /> Excerpt: Planning Commission Minutes, January 22, 2020 Page 5 of 7 <br />e single family home plus an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) was <br /> allowed; she explained the allowance for ADUs. <br /> Excerpt: Planning Commission Minutes, January 22, 2020 Page 4 of 7 <br />l development,' NSSP, page 75. She pointed out the <br /> proposed agricultural lots. She referenced the visuals of the lots and clarified that the family <br /> was asking for an update to the NSSP to allow for the proposed development. She continued <br /> by referencing Senate Bill 50, passed on January 6, 2020, regarding housing projects and the <br /> state providing housing to all income levels. She referenced a visual simulation to demonstrate <br /> the size of the lots and discussed support from the neighbors. <br /> Laverne Spotorno, resident of Pleasanton and family within the City for over 250 years, <br /> provided support for the project and encouraged the Commission to approve the plan, with <br /> whatever conditions may be set forth. <br /> Excerpt: Planning Commission Minutes, January 22, 2020 Page 1 of 7 <br />ed to review of its consistency with the approved PUD development plan <br /> and compliance with State-mandated findings. As noted earlier, staff does not support the <br /> proposed five-lot residential development, and thus does not support the Vesting Tentative <br /> Map as proposed. However, should the Planning Commission support a version of the PUD <br /> PUD-135, P19-0030, P19-0031 and Vesting Tentative Map 8528 <br /> 990 Sycamore Road Planning Commission <br /> 21 of 23 <br /> review and acceptance by the Director of Engineering/City Engineer, prior to <br /> issuance of an engineering or building permit, whichever occurs first. Stormwater HM controls <br /> PUD-135, P19-0030, P19-0031 and VTM 8528 Planning Commission <br /> 990 Sycamore Road <br /> Page 14 of 21 <br />