My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 081308
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
PC 081308
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:37:57 PM
Creation date
9/17/2009 10:51:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/13/2008
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.
/
26
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
Mr. Gorney noted that each lot had been looked at individually with respect to the <br />maximum square footage. He indicated that Lot 6 is actually tucked behind a hill <br />and, therefore, not visible from anywhere. Regarding the Visual Analysis, hme <br />stated that he had built generic buildings ranging in size from 6,000 to 9,000 square <br />feet. He added that a decision was made not add any landscaping because they did <br />not want to give the impression that they were attempting to hide the buildings with <br />trees. <br /> <br />With respect to the various different structures that would likely be built on the lot <br />(two-car garage, guest house, etc.) Mr. Gorney stated that the actual house would <br />not be more than 4,000 or 5,000 square feet. He agreed that due to the lot’s <br />visibility from Foothill Road, a more thorough review of Lot 4 would have to be done. <br />He also noted that the conditions require that each house have a three-dimenstional <br />drawings done and reviewed by sStaff and himself to make sure it will actually fit. <br />He concluded that there will be enough information available to do the job correctly. <br /> <br />With respect to Condition No. 15, Chair Blank inquired if CC&R’s are enforced by the <br />homeowners associationHome Owners Associations.. <br /> <br />Ms. Harryman replied that was correct and noted that the typical language regarding <br />CC&R’s is that the City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce them. <br /> <br />Chair Blank expressed concern about mentioning CC&R’s when there is no <br />homeowners association and noted that in Home Owners Association because in <br />the past, he believes the City never gets involved in them. <br /> <br />Commissioner O’Connor stated that there are actually lots of subdivisions that have <br />CC&R’s but no homeowner associationsHome Owners Associations. <br /> <br />Ms. Harryman concurred with Commissioner O’Connor, explaining that individuals in <br />the complex would be able to bring another owner to court regarding violation of the <br />CC&R’s, even if the homeowners association Home Owners Associationchooses not <br />to get involved. <br /> <br />Chair Blank requested confirmation that a dispute between property owners in that <br />situation could only be settled in court and that one hasve to sue and win , win in <br />course, and hope tto recoup costs. <br /> <br />Commissioner O’Connor disagreed, stating that one cannotyou can’t recoup costs <br />from a CC&R’s. <br /> <br />Chair Blank requested confirmation at from Ms. Harryman, who confirmed that the <br />process for mMaintenance aAssociations and homeowner associationsHome <br />Owners Association was the same. Chair Blank expressed his belief that potential <br />buyers were being penalized in the event there is an issue because their only <br />recourse would be to sue. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 13, 2008 Page 15 of 26 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.