My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 041404
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
PC 041404
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2017 9:44:48 AM
Creation date
3/16/2005 12:54:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/14/2004
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 041404
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
Chairperson Roberts informed the applicant that he could appeal the Commission's decision to <br />'- the within 15 days and to talk to staff regazding this if he so desired. <br />Chairperson Roberts then referred the earlier questions regarding the EVA and reclaimed water <br />to Mr. Grubstick. <br />With respect to driveway and EVA issue, Mr. Grubstick stated that the intent is to close <br />Westbridge Lane with a gate barrier at the cul-de-sac once the Bypass Road is constructed, <br />converting Westbridge Lane into a driveway for the continued use by this property and an EVA <br />for the Golf Course. He noted that the gate would be beyond the subject property. <br />In regard to the reclaimed water, Mr. Grubstick stated that pipes go up the road but that a tap into <br />that pipeline was not anticipated. He advised that it would be many years before recycled water <br />would be available for the Golf Course. He explained that the pipeline is currently being used <br />with domestic water and that there is also a domestic water line adjacent to the pipeline. He <br />indicated that past discussions on recycled water did not include tapping into this line for any <br />other use than for Golf Course, although this could certainly happen. <br />b. PDR-362. Ken Larson <br />Application for design review approval to allow the demolition of an existing <br />2,142-square-foot house (with the possible exception of a few interior walls) and the <br />construction of an approximately 5,417-square-foot, 34-foot high house at 582 Happy <br />Valley Road where the Happy Valley Specific Plan specifies a maximum house height of <br />-- 30 feet on this lot. The property is located in Unincorporated Alameda County and is <br />pre-zoned PUD-SRDR (Planned Unit Development -Semi-Rural Density Residential) <br />District. <br />Ms. Eisenwinter presented the staff report and briefly discussed the application. She noted that <br />the property is not located within the City limits and, as such, would not ordinarily be subject to <br />the City's zoning requirements. She explained that, however, the applicant is requesting to enter <br />into a water and sewer agreement with the City should the house design proposal be approved by <br />the Commission, and one of the stipulations of a sewer and water agreement is that all <br />improvements on the lot be subject to the City's design review approval. <br />Ms. Eisenwinter indicated that the proposal is fora 34-foot high house, which does not conform <br />to the strict height requirement of the Happy Valley Specific Plan design guidelines, which allow <br />a maximum height of 30 feet. She stated that, however, there will be significant landscaping on <br />the lot and would screen the house from the neighboring houses. She added that the houses to <br />the north and west of the property are within the City limits with an R-1-20,000 zoning <br />designation, which allows taller homes similar to that of the proposal. She continued that three <br />homes to the north and east are two stories and are visible from the subject property. <br />Ms. Eisenwinter advised that the City has the ability to allow a deviation from the Specific Plan <br />guidelines for individual projects if the approving body, the Planning Commission in this case, <br />determines that the project would still be in substantial conformance with the Specific Plan. She <br />recommended that the Planning Commission make the finding that the proposal would or would <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 14, 2004 Yage 7 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.