My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 09/25/1991
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
PC 09/25/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2017 4:20:12 PM
Creation date
6/8/2005 12:29:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/25/1991
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 09/25/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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 />6. Contempo Realty Sign <br />Mr. Iserson called attention to the staff memo regarding this sign, noting that staff has found <br />it to be in conformance with the guidelines. The sign is all upper case letters which simply <br />creates the illusion of being larger than it is. <br /> <br />OLD BUSINESS - PUBLIC HEARINGS <br />PUD-85-15-2M. Golden Ea~le Farm .Joint Venture <br />Application of Golden Eagle Farm Joint Venture for a Illl\ior modification to the <br />approved Planned Unit Development for Golden Eagle Farms located on the west side of <br />Foothill Road approximately 3100 feet south of the intersection of Bernal Avenue and <br />Foothill Road, to modify the condition of approval which requires that Lots 22 and 23, <br />26, 52-60, and 63-70 be the last lots in the project subdivided and offered for sale. <br />Zoning for the property is PUD - (planned Unit Development) - (Low Density <br />Residential) District. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson presented the staff report recommending approval of Case PUD-85-15-2M <br />subject to the conditions of the staff report. He noted that installation of the water tank, <br />reforestation and the staging area are the major concerns of staff. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh expressed concerns about the reforestation process. He had heard <br />that as one plants larger and larger trees the probability of survival decreases. In the event <br />,that people are required to plant 48" trees and they don't survive, he asked whether they <br />would be required to replace it with another 48" tree. Mr. Iserson felt they would have to <br />replace it with the same size tree. It is required that there be a financial guarantee for these <br />trees and that can be "beefed up" in the conditions, should the Commission feel the wording <br />is not strong enough. Normally there is a one-year guarantee from a contractor for <br />replacement of trees. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh noted that the process of transplanting fully-grown trees sometimes <br />takes as long as 2-3 years. He asked if the person who purchased the lot would have to wait <br />to build the house until the tree has been successfully transplanted. Mr. Iserson said it <br />depends on the situation, but indicated it would probably not be feasible if a person had to <br />wait that length of time. <br /> <br />Chairman Mahern asked if the reforestation plan was always for 800-900 trees to be planted. <br />Mr. Iserson replied that has always been the plan. <br /> <br />In regard to Commissioner Hovingh's comment, Chairman Mahern asked if it was not <br />feasible to transplant trees in the exact perimeter of the house, if they could be planted in the <br />"benched" area. Mr. Iserson replied that this would be appropriate; this would not <br />necessarily slow someone down from getting a building permit. However, if it took a <br />number of years it might defeat the purpose of the screening. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Minules Planning Commission September 25, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />I. <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.