My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 11/11/1992
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
PC 11/11/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2017 4:28:53 PM
Creation date
5/25/2005 3:49:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/11/1992
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 11/11/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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 />Rainey was "stalling" and that she had been given notice 14 months 0 that the shed was <br />out of compliance. Furthermore, they felt that if the shed were allo ed to stay until <br />February that it would be setting a precedent and make management ore difficult. She <br />stated that many homeowners in Danbury Park have sheds that are' compliance and saw no <br />reason to allow one that is not in compliance. The Board of Directo s felt that since Ms. <br />Rainey is moving in February that it would be no problem for her to dismantle the shed and <br />store it and the belongings in the garage until that time. She said an extension beyond 90 <br />days should not be considered as she felt Ms. Rainey has known the hed was not in <br />compliance for 14 months. <br /> <br />Ms. Rainey responded to the Board of Director's memo, and stated at the CC&R's allow <br />the installation of sheds in a back yard without prior or final approv of the Architectural <br />Committee for landscaping or any structural improvements. Sheds e listed as structural <br />improvements. She had been advised of her rights by a lawyer and at she should go <br />through the process of approval with the City. She also pointed out at there are other <br />structures in back yards in Danbury Park that are out of compliance, as well as hers, which <br />can be seen over the wall. There are a number of deck covers that also out of <br />compliance. She felt that for some reason she was being singled out. <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Michelotti's question, Ms. Rainey ag <br />be adequate time for her to remove the shed. <br /> <br /> <br />that 90 days would <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright noted that he had driven by several times and nly noticed the deck <br />cover, not the shed. <br /> <br />TIlE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSF.n. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commi~ioner Michelotti, seconded by C mmi"oner Mahem <br />making the required ('mdings and upholding the appeal subject to e two conditions, <br />with the following modification: <br /> <br /> <br />Deleting in Condition 1 any reference to the grantin of a time extension <br />of up to 30 days, and that the shed be removed with 90 days, <br /> <br />ROLL CAJ:,L VOTE <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br />Commissioners Mahern, McGuirk, Michelotti, Wright, d Chairman Hovingh <br />None <br />None <br />None <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC-92-94 was entered and adopted upholding Appeal P-92-l7 as motioned. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />November 11, 1992 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.