My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 02/08/1995
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
PC 02/08/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2017 3:55:35 PM
Creation date
3/30/2005 1:37:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/8/1995
DOCUMENT NAME
[C 02/08/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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 />Commissioner Hovingh thought the phrase "until one year after grading" could be deleted <br />from Condition 32. Mr. Higdon stated staff's concern for no monitoring of a 30 foot fill <br />after its initial grading and compaction. It is difficult to say it is stable and ready for a <br />foundation. They must hire a consultant to review the pad. Chairman Wright inquired that <br />the condition is asking for a second soils report if construction will start within one year after <br />the grading. Mr. Higdon is concerned about the case of someone ready to start foundation <br />construction three or four months after the grading. He believes some monitoring gauges <br />must be installed and a soils engineer check the settlement rate to make sure settling is not <br />occurring. <br /> <br />Mr. Ghielmetti advised that their contracts insist that the property builder/property owner get <br />an independent soils engineer to review the lot to mitigate the differential settling issues. <br /> <br />Chairman Wright commented that because the development is made up of private streets, has <br />wide roads, and parking restrictions are enforceable, he would like to maintain the open feel <br />of the project and not require a sidewalk as specified in Condition 15. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk commented on his experience with his neighborhood with only one <br />sidewalk and the hazard of joggers, etc. He would rather have two sidewalks, but would <br />agree to at least one sidewalk on the interior side of the street. Otherwise, he is quite <br />impressed with the project. <br /> <br />Commissioner Barker commented that she likes the sidewalk requirement and would like to <br />condition the application that the cap on their land trust fees be dropped before approving the <br />application. <br /> <br />Commissioner Dove noted he had lived in two developments with no sidewalks and he feels <br />it makes for a much nicer development. <br /> <br />Ms. Watt clarified that the street totals 29 feet and there are 10 1/2 feet of landscape <br />easement on either side of the curbs. Mr. Higdon advised there is about 24 feet of actual <br />asphalt paving. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh supports the sidewalk and would also like to see that all lots backing <br />up to greenbelt have either no fencing or a chain link fencing. Mr. Ghielmetti stated that <br />there is no solid fencing in the rear yards. The allowable fencing is open-screen fencing <br />surrounded by landscaping. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lutz is impressed with the improvements made to the lots and circulation <br />patterns and he also supports the sidewalk as a worthwhile amenity. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Cornrni....ioner Hovingh, seconded by Commissioner Lutz, <br />adopting Case PUD-93-02-1M subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B <br />(February 3, 1995). <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 11 <br /> <br />February 8, 1995 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.