My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 060811
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 060811
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
7/18/2011 3:24:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/8/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
<br />hooked up with the development of the Roselyn Estates, and, therefore, it would be <br />easy for this project to tap into those utilities. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank inquired if the Fire Department will need to weigh in on the <br />driveway or if the Department has already deemed it to be sufficient. <br /> <br />Ms. Soo replied that the Fire Department has already reviewed the driveway. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank inquired if this project will come back to the Commission in terms <br />of layout. <br /> <br />Ms. Soo replied that it would come back to the Commission when the PUD application <br />is filed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank inquired if it would have a Homeowners Association rather than a <br />Maintenance Association. <br /> <br />Ms. Soo replied that it would be a Homeowners Association as there is a creek at the <br />back that would need to be maintained. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson referred to the last sentence of the indented paragraph on <br />page 10 regarding the 20-foot easement located on the westerly boundary of the <br />property: the event that the Jones property is developed, the exclusive access <br />easement will be required to be extinguished unless it is allowed to remain by the City <br /> He <br />Lot Layou, which he found to be <br />reasonable in terms of running the road around the perimeter of the property, thereby <br />providing access to all of the new lots without coming through the driveway. He <br />inquired if the language on page 10 negates the layout plan or if this is simply the form <br />of an escape clause. <br /> <br />Ms. Stern replied that the language is to provide access only to the one home and not to <br />any of the homes in the new PUD. <br /> <br />Ms. Harryman explained that Condition No. 24 of the original PUD approval provides <br />that the applicant would have to give up the driveway, the thought behind it being to <br />have all of the lots take access off of Calico Lane. She noted that with the house <br />moving over closer to Cindy Way, it makes sense to keep this driveway, and the <br />purpose of this language then is to allow this driveway to remain. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br />Lynn Jansen, owner/applicant and the builder and developer of the prior Roselyn <br />Estates as well as of the future Phase 2 of the Roselyn Estates, stated that he would <br />like to speak on two points: the easement and the new home. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 8, 2011 Page 4 of 22 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.