My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 09/23/1992
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
PC 09/23/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2013 3:46:06 PM
Creation date
5/25/2005 3:19:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/23/1992
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 09/23/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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 />number of concerned citizens present. He noted that once the citizen and Board realized <br />there would be no windows on the back side of the houses they had problems with it. <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued between Commissioners Michelotti and M <br />regard to lot elevation. <br /> <br /> <br />er clarified the <br /> <br />Emil Oxsen, 403 Neal Street, also represented the application. <br />fencing issues. <br /> <br />TIlE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CWSED, <br /> <br />COMMENTS <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright stated that he would want to retain the rural at osphere of Amber <br />Lane as much as possible by making the road the minimum width tha is necessary to meet <br />safety requirements. He was not in favor of making it a through-str t. <br /> <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Mahern's question, Mr. Swift noted tha the Fire Department <br />has not completely addressed the situation as to what width of road i necessary. Staff would <br />like for the road to be more than 20 feet wide, probably 22-24 feet. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Commissioner Finch stated as the area of Amber Lane is still quite ral that he would favor <br />keeping the road as it is, at least as much as possible. He is in favor of all the Conditions of <br />Approval except for Condition 14, which he would delete. <br /> <br />Commissioner Mahern stated she agreed with Commissioners Wright and Finch in regard to <br />Amber Lane. She would not be willing to open Amber Lane up to e Rosepointe area and <br />would not want traffic from there to go to Sycamore Road. Howeve, in the long-term view, <br />she felt it would have to be opened as a through street. She did not ink that it was right <br />for the developer to be burdened with the entire cost of opening Amb r Lane, as long as he <br />was willing to dedicate an easement. <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti noted that the issue of opening Amber Lan should have been <br />discussed in the Specific Plan, and that it was very difficult to try to ecide the matter at this <br />point. However, she felt there was no way around it now and that it would probably have to <br />go through. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk commented they have talked about Sycamor Road and Amber Lane <br />being kept rural. He did not think the house plans being looked at to ight would be in <br />keeping with a rural atmosphere, and did not know if they were appr priate for the lots, <br />although the FAR is within the required range. As far as Amber e was concerned, he <br />would like to leave it open for future use as needed by the City for a through-street, if <br />required. However, in the short-term, he would leave it as it is now In the long-term, he <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 1992 <br /> <br />Page l6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.