My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 121008
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
PC 121008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:38:58 PM
Creation date
3/10/2009 9:59:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
12/10/2008
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
Chair Blank informed the public that the decision would take effect in 15 days unless <br />appealed. <br />a. PUD-85-09, Sunrise Senior Living <br />Review of the determination made by the Director of Community Development <br />on substantial conformance of the Sunrise Senior Living facility with the <br />approved PUD-85-09 located at 5700 Pleasant Hill Road. Zoning for the <br />property is PUD-C-O (Planned Unit Development -Commercial-Office) District. <br />Mr. Dolan presented some introductory comments, stating that staff had brought <br />forth its consideration of its being in substantial conformance with a previous <br />approval. He recalled for the Commission that this generated some controversy with <br />the neighborhood, mostly related to the number of stories of the original approval <br />and the intensity of the proposed facility. He added that there was some <br />inconsistency in the historic documentation that staff was able to gather. He noted <br />that instead of taking action, the Commission requested staff to set up a facilitation <br />process between the applicant and the neighbors. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that the City hired a private facilitator, funded by Sunrise Senior <br />Living; staff then asked the neighbors to select a group of representatives and setup <br />a process to cover three meetings with the facilitator. He noted that both parties <br />worked hard and in good faith to determine whetherthere could be a projectthat <br />would have a broader support of the finding of substantial conformity. Mr. Dolan <br />stated that the applicant was very responsive on many issues and made several <br />revisions to the design. He noted that by the end of the third meeting, staff felt the <br />project met the applicant's needs and addressed many of the neighbors' concerns. <br />He added that although there was not unanimous support on every issue by <br />neighbors, there was general support for the steps Sunrise has taken. He indicated <br />that staff has not been so insistent that the building look exactly like it did the last <br />time, and the applicant has been liberal in interpreting and addressing the neighbors' <br />concerns. <br />Mr. Dolan then recommended that the Commission make the finding of substantial <br />conformity with the application submitted. <br />Ms. Giffin then presented the staff report and gave a brief description of the <br />modifications to the project plans, including the elevations, the colors and the <br />materials, and the signage. She then presented a table comparing the elements of <br />the revised proposal to the 1985 proposal. <br />Commissioner Narum requested a view of the elevations along Foothill Road. <br />Ms. Giffin stated that it was included in the packet in black and white. <br />Commissioner O'Connor referred to the driveway going towards Foothill Road and <br />inquired if this was atwo-way road. Ms. Giffin replied that this was for egress only. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 10, 2008 Page 25 of 35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.