My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 08/28/1991
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
PC 08/28/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2017 4:19:46 PM
Creation date
6/8/2005 12:23:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/28/1991
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 08/28/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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 />In response to Commissioner Horan, Mr. Griffen stated that the footprint of the single unit is <br />about 950 sq. ft. (plan C); Plan D is about 1,500 sq. ft. <br /> <br />Commissioner Horan felt that the line of sight for the "granny" flat on Plan D would be the <br />RV. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh asked Mr. Griffen what the CC&R's say about "granny" flats and <br />RV storage. Mr. Griffen said "granny" flats are permitted; the CC&R's also allow RV's as <br />permitted by the City. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh expressed concern that at some future time, someone could turn the <br />RV storage into another unit. Mr. Griffen did not think that would be a problem as he <br />would not want another unit; fui1hermore, if he no longer lived there, regulations would <br />prohibit this situation. In addition, the RV storage would not have plumbing lines or gas <br />lines. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright discussed Plan D with Mr. Griffen. He suggested that the two story <br />structure could possibly be made into one longer unit. Mr. Griffen indicated he had looked <br />at that possibility, but grading would not make it feasible and would also take too much <br />space out of the backyard. Commissioner Wright felt that with some planning it could be <br />worked out. Further discussion ensued on that idea. <br /> <br />Mr. Griffen commented on several staff conditions of approval: (1) He did not wish to <br />submit another landscape plan, as he said one was submitted with the building plan; (2) He <br />was opposed to a continuous fence in front of the RV unit. He felt that the plan he <br />proposed was superior. (3) He ft::lt it was not necessary to submit elevations of the RV <br />structure and the carport at this time, but was part of the normal process. He did not think <br />it was appropriate to ask for these prior to issuing the building permit. (4) He also felt it <br />was not the normal procedure to request a grading and drainage plan at this time, and <br />thought that he was being asked to do things not required of other applicants. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson assured the applicant staff was not trying to be burdensome, but that the <br />conditions as listed were all part of a standard operating procedure. <br />Commissioner Hovingh pointed out to Mr. Griffen that the required landscaping would <br />provide privacy for himself as well as his neighbors. <br /> <br />Emery Sugasawara, 9 Roman Eagle Court, President of the Homeowners' Association, said <br />the Association has major problems with the proposed structure plans. The Board and the <br />applicant have met and tried to work out their differences. The biggest concern is with the <br />unattached dwelling, which they feel is most undesirable. The Board feels that allowing this <br />structure would start a precedent and that with the large number of homes in their area that <br />could accommodate such a dwelling, many such structures would be built. The height <br />elevation would be undesirable, and his home would be most impacted. He was not sure <br /> <br />Minutes Planning COaaission <br />August 28, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />,. <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.