My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 020911
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 020911
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
4/20/2011 4:01:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/9/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
Ms. Stern clarified that the question asked was how far south the garage can be moved <br />while still maintaining an 18-foot long driveway. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank asked if the original driveway will be maintained. <br /> <br />Ms. Amos said no. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank inquired whether or not the entire garage could be moved down <br />three feet and whether or not it would shorten the distance between the property line <br />and the property. <br /> <br />Ms. Amos clarified that she was referring to the existing garage, and moving it down <br />three feet would not meet the required minimum setback. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank requested clarification that moving the existing garage three feet <br />would not meet minimum setback but would be consistent with the required 18-foot long <br />garage. <br /> <br />Ms. Amos said yes, but it would also reduce the street sideyard setback. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin clarified that the existing garage is not being proposed to be <br />moved three feet. <br /> <br />Ms. Amos said it was not. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br />Michael Tolleson, architect/applicant, indicated that the alternative proposal was <br />presented to the Planning staff and generated only for the owners and was never part of <br />the Variance request. He, therefore, requested that it be excluded from Commission <br />consideration. He then presented the history of the house, which was built around 1970 <br />as the model home sales office for the tract, and included the sales office in the garage <br />location on the south adjacent to the entry, a bathroom for employees and buyers built <br />within the sales office, a legal driveway provided between the street and original sales <br />office, and another driveway provided to the west. He noted that the sales office use of <br />the garage is established by historical data, permits, and anecdotal evidence by <br />neighbors in the community. <br /> <br />stems from <br />their reasonable desire for a typical condition of house entry by the garage. He noted <br />that the hardship that this has created for them stems from the placement of the <br />attached west garage, which has no direct access to the house, and which can be <br />achieved only by moving the garage; access to the house from the garage would be <br />between the two bedrooms. He noted that moving the garage by only two feet would <br />not achieve this purpose. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MINUTES, February 9, 2011 Page 23 of 41 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.