My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 06/14/1995
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
PC 06/14/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2017 3:56:48 PM
Creation date
3/30/2005 1:53:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/14/1995
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 06/14/1995
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 />the fault line has never been determined on the property, and the house location relative to <br />the fault line is unknown. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS CWSED <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk inquired of staff about the misunderstanding of the Golden Eagle <br />Farms Design Guidelines. Mr. Plucker advised the Commission he contacted the developer's <br />architect and reviewed with him each point of the design review in question. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright inquired of staff about whether or not the building envelope could be <br />relocated. Mr. Plucker advised he could not speak to the commitments made by the <br />developer. He noted that the lot is regarded as being highly visible with the building pad <br />being 20 feet lower than requested by the applicant. The Commission discussed at length the <br />visibility of the lot, the available screening, the location of the building envelope, the lot <br />grading, and the terraced house design. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright does not concur with the concept of inconvenience to the homeowners <br />necessitates a non-split level design. He also feels moving the house further up the lot <br />requires a longer driveway which increases the height of the house in relation to the street <br />elevation. He supports staffs recommendation to deny this application. <br /> <br />~- <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh concurs with Commissioner Wright, and further feels that this house <br />would be very visible. Commissioner Hovingh further commented that Mr. Byars did the <br />City and the applicant a disservice by not noting the house design did not meet the <br />Guidelines. Commissioner McGuirk concurs with these comments as well, and also noted <br />that in view of the lot topography and the applicant's choice of house design, perhaps the <br />wrong lot was chosen for purchase. He also supports staffs denial recommendation. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Hovingh, seconded by Commissioner Wright, <br />denying Case Z-95-04. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br />Commissioners Dove, Hovingh, McGuirk, Wright, and Chairman Lutz <br />None <br />Commissioner Barker <br />None <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC-95-33 was entered denying Case Z-95-04, as motioned. <br /> <br />Chairman Lutz advised the applicants they have a right of appeal to the City Council. <br /> <br />Planning Commiuion Minutes <br /> <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />June 14, t995 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.