My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 08/23/1995
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
PC 08/23/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2017 3:57:34 PM
Creation date
3/30/2005 2:27:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/23/1995
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 08/23/1995
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
<br />Brian Schwalen, 417 Sycamore Road, the original developer for this lot, gave some historical <br />perspective to this hearing. The Jefferies are the second owners of this lot. Mr. Schwalen <br />related that the first owners applied for and got approval for a retaining wall on the eastern <br />property line. When submitting preliminary plans, the first owner was then advised he could <br />not build a retaining wall. Mr. Schwalen feels Mr. Macari's opposition to the retaining wall <br />is based on his visual concerns. Mr. Jefferies has agreed to face the retaining wall with <br />whatever facia Mr. Macari would like. Mr. Schwalen provided pictures of Diamond Court <br />and the property. It was also noted that Mr. Macari has erected a 10- foot fence. <br /> <br />Nancy Jefferies, 1030 Magnolia Ave., #6, Millbrae, advised she and her husband didn't want <br />to give up the five feet of property, however, they are willing to comprise in order to move <br />forward with their construction. Ms. Jefferies stated they were originally told they would be <br />able to backfill that area and build a retaining wall. <br /> <br />Dean Macari, 455 Sycamore Road, advised that Exhibit 3 is an acceptable plan. He initially <br />told the Jefferies he would resist the retaining wall in order to keep the integrity of the horse <br />fencing. <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Barker, Mr. Swift advised that the retaining wall as depicted in <br />Figure 2 would not be considered a structure. It is considered a wall or fence, therefore, it <br />would not in violation of building ordinances. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh stated he viewed the property and would suggest the removal of the <br />make-shift fence above the horse fence. Staff will have to research whether the fence falls <br />under the guidelines of the County or the City. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright concurred with Commissioner Hovingh regarding the unsightly fence <br />and inquired of staff if the five foot area is sufficient to support the 24 inch box trees. Staff <br />believes it is of sufficient size. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh motioned, seconded by Commissioner Wright, approval of Case <br />Z-94-252 subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B, with the sideyard <br />conforming to Exhibit C. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Barker, Dove, Hovingh, Wright and Chairman Lutz <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: Commissioner McGuirk <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC 95-56 was entered approving Case Z-94-252, as motioned. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />August 23. 1995 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.