My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 08/09/1995
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
PC 08/09/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2017 3:57:28 PM
Creation date
3/30/2005 2:24:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/9/1995
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 08/09/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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 />d. <br /> <br />Condition 9A: Mr. Jones only asked that Lots 6-9 not have two story houses on them, not <br />Lot 13. Mr. Jansen provided pictures of the mature, established trees on Mr. Jones property <br />along these lot lines, indicating that sufficient screening exists. Mr. Jansen feels Lot 7 is the <br />only lot at issue with Mr. Jones' property and privacy. Mr. Jansen requested section (a) of <br />this condition be dropped for Lots 6, 8, and 9. The applicant is willing to plant trees on Lot <br />7 for privacy. <br /> <br />Condition 7: Mr. Jansen is not opposed to working with Mr. Jones regarding the drainage <br />of his property. <br /> <br />Condition 8: Mr. Jansen does not believe this condition is needed. <br /> <br />Condition lOB: From the viewpoint of a homeowner, Mr. Jansen would rather have all <br />driveways the full width to the street. <br /> <br />Condition 9C: Lot 11 driveway is within 2 feet of the lot line and Mr. Jansen would like an <br />exception for this one lot. <br /> <br />Mr. Jansen feels there is a general understanding among the property owners of Rose Avenue <br />that they would split the cost of improving Rose Avenue, however, he has not found any <br />conditions stating he would be reimbursed for those expenses he puts in between the <br />development and Rose Lane. <br /> <br />Further, in David Jones' PUD, there was a condition stating that for every existing tree <br />saved, one required street tree can be eliminated. Mr. Jansen would like this condition to <br />apply to him as well. <br /> <br />Also, in the Martinique approval, there was a condition that stipulated that the City shall <br />reimburse a developer for oversizing the water line required on Rose Avenue. Mr. Jansen <br />would also like that condition added to this application. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright clarified that most of the houses would have front entry garages rather <br />than the depicted side entry garages. <br /> <br />Ray Thompson, 1777 Rose Avenue, one of the owners of the properties proposed for <br />development, stated that he has had several developers make proposals, but Mr. Jansen's <br />designs are the best in keeping with the character of the area. <br /> <br />William Sharp, 1520 Rose Lane, spoke in opposition to this application. He likes the Rose <br />Lane location, with privacy, little traffic and close to Downtown. His lot is 12,000 square <br />feet. He is speaking for all neighbors on Rose Lane. They oppose any reduction in the <br />minimum lot size for this area, believing it will have an adverse affect on their property <br />values. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 16 <br /> <br />August 9, 1995 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.