My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-95-21
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
PC-95-21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2006 9:33:19 AM
Creation date
3/30/2005 3:40:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
3/22/1995
DOCUMENT NO
PC-95-21
NOTES 3
UPHOLD PLAN DIR DETERM THAT CONST OF SEC UNIT OTSDE A PUD-BLDG ENVELOPE REQ AN APPL PUD MAJ MODIF
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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 />Item 6.d. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Staff Report <br />March 22, 1995 <br /> <br />SUBJECT: <br />APPLICANT: <br /> <br />Appeal of a Planning Director Determination <br /> <br />Samuel Raber <br /> <br />PROPERTY OWNER: <br /> <br />Samuel Raber <br /> <br />PURPOSE: The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission review the Planning <br />Director's determination that construction of a second unit outside of a PUD- <br />building envelope requires an application for a PUD major modification, rather <br />than a variance. <br /> <br />LOCATION: 20 Deer Oaks Drive <br /> <br />ZONlNG~ Zoning for the property is PUD - LDRlOS -- Planned Unit <br />Development - Low Density Residential/Open Space <br /> <br />ATTACHMENTS: 1. <br />2. <br /> <br />Applicant's Statements <br />Staff's Letters to Applicant dated: <br />a. December 6, 1994 <br />b. January 30, 1995 <br />Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 22, 1993 <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />I. BACKGROUND <br /> <br />In September 1993, Mr. Raber requested the Planning Commission to determine whether <br />second units are subject to the locational requirements of Planned Unit Development- <br />approved building envelopes. The Commission determined that the State Government Code <br />states very clearly that second units must adhere to all local ordinances and that a PUD is a <br />local ordinance. Therefore, any proposed second unit must comply with all the development <br />standards listed in the PUD ordinance and any shown on the PUD development plan. Since <br />the building envelopes for each individua1lot are indicated on the PUD plan, and since the <br />PUD states that no structure is to be built outside of the building envelope, the Planning <br />Commission determined that Mr. Raber's second unit must be constructed within the PUD- <br />approved building envelope. (please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report, <br />item 3, dated September 22, 1993.) <br /> <br />Page 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.