My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 06/22/88
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
PC 06/22/88
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 11:23:59 AM
Creation date
4/13/2007 4:09:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/22/1988
DOCUMENT NAME
PC062288
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
The public hearing was closed. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Berger, seconded by <br />Commissioner Hoyt recommending approval of Case PUD-B1-30-35D-2M <br />subject to the conditions of the staff report. <br />Commissioner Tarver commented that he felt this was a key <br />location for the project and was not comfortable with the way it <br />is laid out. Therefore, he could not support the project. <br />ROLL_CALL_VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Berger, Hoyt, Mahern, and Chairman <br />Michelotti <br />NOES: Commissioner Tarver <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />Resolution No. PC-88-78 was entered and adopted approving of <br />PUD-81-30-35D-2M as motioned. <br />PUD=82-10-8Ms_Tom_and Randie Black <br />-------- ------------- <br />Application for a major modification to an approved development <br />plan f or a 28 unit residential project to modif y the <br />configuration of the approved building envelope of a specific <br />parcel located at 4 Red Feather Court. Zoning for the property <br />is PUD (Planned Unit Development) - Low Density Residential <br />District. <br />Mr. Swift presented the staff report recommending denial of Case <br />PUD-82-10-BM. <br />Commissioner Hoyt asked Mr. Swift if the cut and fill is equal <br />and the amount is about the same as the previous plan. Mr. <br />Swift agreed that this is true, but he said what is relevant is <br />how high up the hill does the cut slope go and what the total <br />size of the flat yard area is. In this particular application <br />the flat yard area is larger than the approved plan and about <br />the same as was denied by the City Council for modification. <br />Because of the topography of the slope the building pad is <br />higher on the hill than the approved plan by a few feet in <br />vertical elevation. He further discussed the daylight line and <br />the grading with Commissioner Hoyt. <br />Commissioner Hoyt asked which plan would do the least damage to <br />the hillside. Mr. Swif t said that depends on what is determined <br />as damage. <br />Mr. Swift said the difficulty with the site is that one can't <br />get a very good idea of what is happening on the site by drawing <br />sections because the area of disagreement between the neighbors <br />and the Blacks cannot be shown with a single cross section and <br />has to do with where the grading is on the nose of the ridge. <br />In the original approved plan most of the grading occurs on the <br />Page 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.