My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 12/11/1991
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
PC 12/11/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2017 4:23:35 PM
Creation date
6/8/2005 12:54:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
12/11/1991
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 12/11/1991
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 />Further discussion ensued between Mr. Lamb and Commissioner Michelotti regarding the <br />necessity for an east/west road to the property. Commissioners Michelotti and Wright <br />suggested that staff look more closely at this issue. <br /> <br />Commissioner Horan discussed the matter of the existing barn with Mr. Lamb and noted that <br />he would favor Condition 4.j. to read that the FAR shall be .20 based on net lot area, <br />excluding the existing barn.!l[ up to 450 sq. ft. of garage area. Mr. Lamb said he had no <br />problem with that. <br /> <br />Ralph Romero, 2810 Foothill Road, thought the applicant had done a good job of trying to <br />please the neighbors and the City, and felt he had done everything he possibly could do with <br />one lot. As far as the added roadway was concerned, Mr. Romero felt that was a "plus" to <br />him. He added that he would personally prefer to do the maintenance himself rather than <br />have a homeowners Association. He felt an Association was not feasible with a one-lot <br />PUD. <br />Discussion ensued between Commissioner Horan and Mr. Romero regarding the future <br />alignment of the frontage road off Foothill Road. Mr. Romero stated that the current <br />planned alignment would not work for him as it would go through his yard. He wished to <br />go on record that he had agreed to give southerly access because it makes sense to the <br />property south of him; however, the way the road is now set up, it will not work. <br /> <br />Mr. Romero addressed the height issue. He stated he did not object to even a 35' ht. for the <br />structure. His own house is 37' in height and he did not consider it obtrusive. He felt that <br />a 30' limit was not fair to the applicant and felt that there was no need to protect him (Mr. <br />Romero) with a 30' limitation. He would rather allow the applicant to design a home <br />complimentary to the area. <br /> <br />Mr. Romero addressed the frontage road. He felt it was difficult to ask one owner to put in <br />all the improvements that could possibly cover from five to ten lots. He thought it was more <br />equitable to. the applicant to ask for a dedication at a later time. In response to <br />Commissioner Horan's question, Mr. Romero said he would rather contribute to road <br />maintenance than be part of a homeowners Association. He said he currently has a private <br />agreement on his roadway with a neighbor. <br /> <br />Mike Peel, 530 Dolores Place, expressed agreement with the applicant and Mr. Romero in <br />regard to the frontage roadway. He also did not feel it was logical to ask for a 150' setback <br />as noted in Condition 4.h., but that 100 to 120' was more than adequate. He also thought a <br />28' roadway was too much. <br /> <br />Bob Martin, 4680 Windmill, said he has several concerns: (1) He felt the 150' setback was <br />extreme and that 120' was sufficient. (2) He did not think it necessary to have a 28' <br />east/west road as noted in Condition 16, and felt that was a lot of asphalt for an area where <br />very little development would be going on. <br /> <br />Minutes Planning Commission <br />December 11, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.