My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 08/28/96
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
PC 08/28/96
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2017 4:01:11 PM
Creation date
2/23/2005 4:32:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/28/1996
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 8/28/96
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Dove, Mr. Iserson believes the windows on the rear elevation are at <br />normal window height. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lutz feels the topography of the lot is significant and feels the split pad house is <br />appropriate for the lot. He feels the RV door is quite large, however, the downslope does diminish <br />the visibility of the door, and he prefers the RV garage door over parking the RV outside. He is <br />mindful of the privacy issues of the neighbors, but he feels the 60 foot separation and planting of <br />trees will provide sufficient privacy. He also has a concern with the large rear garage door and <br />supports the staff recommendation to change it to a pedestrian door or eliminate it altogether. <br /> <br />Chairwoman Barker commented that it is unfortunate that Shapell promised one-story homes but the <br />condition was not put in the [mal record. She supports the application because she does not feel the <br />one-story condition applies to this lot, it is designed to have minimal impact on the three trees, and <br />there is a 60 foot rear yard setback. She would like to see the rear garage door changed to a window <br />and a regular doorway. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cooper asked what is to be done about the privacy of the adjoining, unbuilt lot. Mr. <br />Iserson recommended that a solution would be to install a solid screening on that side of the sundeck. <br />Commissioner Cooper would prefer to remove the sundeck from the plans. Commissioner Cooper <br />questioned Mr. Beougher if the developer made verbal promises in front of witnesses if they were <br />legally binding. Me. Beougher stated that such things should be in writing. It lends credence to the <br />fact that if such promises were going to be put in the final record, they would have been put in. <br />This issue is between the private individuals and Shapell. The City did not incorporate them as <br />conditions of approval, therefore, the City can't enforce them. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk motioned, seconded by Commissioner Dove, approving Case Z-96-160, <br />subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B, with the following addition <br /> <br />1. Replace the large rear garage door with a regular or French door. <br />2. Add additional landscaping along the southern property line to provide privacy <br />to the adjoining lot. <br />3. Condition 7: Change "east property line" to "south property line." <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Dove, Lutz, McGuirk and Chairwoman Barker <br />NOES: Commissioner Cooper <br />ABSENT: Commissioner Wright <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC 96-61 was entered approving Case Z-96-160, as motioned. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />August 28, 1996 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.