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 inquired about the approximate square footage of the visual demonstrated <br /> during the presentation. <br /> Ms. Stewart responded that the visual demonstrated 4,231 square feet. <br /> Commissioner Allen stated the proposed project felt too encompassing and clarified that she <br /> was proposing a smaller pad. <br /> Ms. Stewart explained the drainage issue and inability to shift the pad and explained it might <br /> be necessary to eliminate the ADU. <br /> Vice Chair Brown discussed potential changes in ADU law. <br /> Ms. Harryman stated, as of January 1, 2020, the ADU did not have to be within the building <br /> envelope. <br /> Commissioner Pace expressed concern regarding changes in law allowing an ADU five feet <br /> from the street. <br /> Ms. Stewart clarified that the drainage would not allow construction outside of the pad. <br /> Commissioner Allen asked if the pad was the only location for construction. <br /> Ms. Clark clarified that drainage and topography established the building envelope, among <br /> other factors, and that the building envelope defined the area in which construction was <br /> allowed. <br /> Vice Chair Brown discussed opinions on amenities and concerns regarding massing. <br /> Ms. Clark suggested the Commission take a straw vote on four or five lot options to provide <br /> direction to staff and the applicant. <br /> ACTION: There was a straw vote regarding whether the Commission was in favor of a <br /> four- or five-lot project. <br /> Commissioner Pace indicated he was in favor of five lots with a condition to reduce massing <br /> on Lot 1. He requested information on character and what had been done to retain a similar <br /> feel on Dale Way. He stated he was amenable to 70-foot setbacks but would prefer increased <br /> setback from Dale Way. <br /> In response to Vice Chair Brown, Commissioner Pace stated his support for five lots was not <br /> conditioned around an amenity but would prefer the proposed amenity come back to the <br /> Commission. <br /> Ms. Clark explained it was a City Council decision, but the Commission could provide input. <br /> Commissioner Allen indicated support for five lots, with increased setback from Dale Way and <br /> setback from Sycamore Road to be greater than 70 feet, a smaller building pad and a visual <br /> representing the massing of the house and which gives an actual depiction of what can be <br /> Excerpt: Planning Commission Minutes, January 22, 2020 Page 6 of 7 <br /> 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 />