My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 011404
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
PC 011404
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2017 9:43:04 AM
Creation date
3/16/2005 12:30:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/14/2004
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 011404
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
Peter MacDonald, applicants' attorney, 400 Main Street. Suite 210, read the following letter <br />from Mr. Hafker to the Commission into the record: <br />"Dear Members of the Planning Commission: <br />"I really appreciate your hearing me out this evening. I am normally not shy, but I had <br />back fusion surgery on October 23`d, and I am on painkillers. <br />"My wife, Hermine, and I have been cooperative with the City and my neighbors, and <br />Greenbriar throughout the development process. <br />"I feel like the plan for my property meets with the requirements of your planning. I <br />know I could ask for an exception, but I would rather comply with the planning <br />requirements without asking for an exception. The plan says 15,000 square foot lots, and <br />I can more than meet that requirement. <br />"We cannot afford an expensive gamble and any certainty you can give us will be <br />appreciated. If you vote to uphold your plan, it will make processing our subdivision <br />much easier. Thank you for any help you can give us." <br />Mr. MacDonald noted that Mr. Hafker is a carpenter and precise by nature, in words and actions. <br />He noted that Mr. Hafker had been in a car accident in 2000 and had not worked since then. The <br />extra lot would be helpful in terms of his unplanned retirement, but the cost of processing the <br />PUD was very substantial; he wished to get a sense of what was being proposed. He believed <br />that staff was correct in its assessment between 90-95 percent of the time and added that <br />Mr. Iserson's report correctly identified the Specific Plan as the controlling document. He did <br />not believe that the zoning amended the Specific Plan. He read a portion of the staff report <br />which quoted the NSSP concerning the intent of the PUD-LDR land use category: <br />"Development within this district is generally intended to conform with the provisions <br />and permitted uses contained in the R-1 One-Family District of the City of Pleasanton's <br />Municipal Code, with a minimum parcel size of 12,000 square feet on flat land and <br />15,000 square feet on sloping land and land which is located either south of the <br />East-West Collector or adjacent to the northern plan border (gross density of two units <br />per acre)." <br />Mr. MacDonald noted that normally, if one intended to amend the Specific Plan Land Use Map, <br />it would not be used with words like "generally intended to conform." In addition, he did not <br />believe that there were 12,000-square foot lots with a gross density of two units per acre. <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin, Mr. MacDonald replied that the parenthetical <br />statement, "(gross density of two units per acre)" is a descriptive clause in pages of text which <br />are ultimately summarized with a General Plan Land Use Map. He noted that phrases such as <br />"generally intended to conform with" become an amendment to that Land Use Map, and it <br />becomes difficult to understand what it means. He believed that the planning process was <br />- intended to clearly lay down the rules. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2004 Page 10 of 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.