My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
7_Exhibits A, C & D
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2021
>
07-14
>
7_Exhibits A, C & D
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/7/2021 3:26:25 PM
Creation date
7/7/2021 3:26:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
7/14/2021
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
7
(Message)
Path:
\BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\AGENDA PACKETS\2020 - PRESENT\2021\07-14
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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
Applicant Guy Houston provided closing remarks before the Public Hearing was closed. <br /> THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED <br /> Discussion Point #1 <br /> 1. Is the site appropriate for a church development? <br /> Commissioner Allen stated her initial position to likely have voted against the project but after <br /> reading the report and hearing the speakers, she thought it was appropriate as long as the <br /> rural aesthetic and traffic conditions were in place. <br /> Commissioner Gaidos agreed that it was appropriate for a church development. <br /> Commissioner Pace stated he believed the use was appropriate. <br /> Commissioner Ritter agreed with Commissioner Pace. <br /> Commissioner Nibert agreed with the other Commissioners. <br /> Chair Brown found the site appropriate for a church development and appreciated the design <br /> considerations. <br /> Discussion Point #2 <br /> 2. Are the overall site plan, circulation design, and trash enclosure/delivery area layout <br /> acceptable? <br /> Commissioner Allen stated the perspective of the second story elevation of the Community <br /> Center building from Dublin Canyon Road seemed bland and requested additional articulation. <br /> She stated the Community Center felt massive and less stylish but could be mitigated with <br /> excellent screening. She stated she normally preferred parking in the back but because that <br /> was not possible, she requested screening or a design feature to shield the parking lot, similar <br /> to the Carpenter Training Center project on Santa Rita Road. <br /> Commissioner Pace stated the proposed project was well done and well laid out. He <br /> appreciated the commitment to preserving the rural character. He stated natural features were <br /> always preferable to constructed ones in a rural area. <br /> Commissioner Gaidos stated previous concerns about the trash enclosure and delivery area <br /> were appropriately addressed. He stated he liked the site design. <br /> Chair Brown stated the parking lot for the Carpenter Training Center was raised from street <br /> level, creating the need for the screening wall. He asked the grade of the parking lot to the <br /> road. Ms. Hagen stated the road coming around the corner was about 420 feet in elevation <br /> and the parking lot was 422 feet. She stated the site construction would only be two feet higher <br /> than the road and would not be noticeable. <br /> Commissioner Ritter stated he liked the site plan. He asked for clarification on the two-story <br /> Community Center building. Ms. Hagen stated there was a second-story office component and <br /> that the gym was two stories in height, although did not have a second floor. Commissioner <br /> Excerpt: Approved Planning Commission Minutes, April 14, 2021 Page 3 of 5 <br /> diversity in the City. <br /> Excerpt: Approved Planning Commission Minutes, April 14, 2021 Page 2 of 5 <br /> about 10 feet from the property <br /> line, and the church was located approximately 35 feet from the property line, providing a <br /> combined distance of approximately 45 feet between the home and the church building. She <br /> stated the sanctuary building and dome would be approximately 200 feet from the property <br /> line. Commissioner Pace asked the visual impacts and potential privacy issues. Ms. Hagen <br /> explained there were no second story windows on the west side of the building that would <br /> provide views of adjacent properties. <br /> Excerpt: Approved Planning Commission Minutes, April 14, 2021 Page 1 of 5 <br />e type, location, and sizing calculations of the <br /> PUD-114-01M& P20-0995 Planning Commission <br /> Page 16 of 25 <br /> PUD-114-01M& P20-0995 Planning Commission <br /> Page 3 of 25 <br />YCROSSCRISFIELD .*- 4-; -,47÷-'' 1.1--1 ''.-. HAM <br /> ;-----fk;s7,4G <br /> il <br /> 3` <br /> • kst • .7 <br /> I DIJNIYA1:1%, ..4.. ,i4is' '1 , „J 10 ,,,... <br /> ‘1 'kTIAV - 1) \ ‘ ' ?) $.Y \t, ,2:2/ <br /> \ ‘ 111-,-,: . <br /> ,..... i ..., i <br /> 1:11,343 <br /> o 0.125 0.25 mi PUD-140, Townsend, Lot Line, 2207 Martin Ave Planning Division =-- -.• .-.... , 1:16 <br /> I i II May 10,2021 FLEA:.,ANTON. <br /> 0 650 1,300 Feet <br />