My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 11/24/87
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
PC 11/24/87
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 11:09:03 AM
Creation date
4/19/2007 4:49:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/24/1987
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 11/24/87
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
area and will continue to work with them and the City' A <br />conceptual Wan was presented to the Board. <br />Commissioner Berger asked Mr. Beratlis if the landscaping would <br />bE put in by the developer and maintained by the nomeowners. <br />Mr. Beratlis said they will put zn the landscaping and maintain <br />�t. The lots wili be developed but no homes will be built at <br />this time. <br />Chairman Lindsey asked the applicant if the required landscaping <br />will be done immediately. The applicant said that it mould be <br />done immediately, as would the fence line between the property <br />and the neignbc`rs' property. <br />Cc~=issione`' Michelotti asked if the landscaping shown was <br />eonceptual anb would it be done at the time the fence is put in. <br />Me. ReratIis said it :would be done after the fencing is put in; <br />that. an irrigation system would be put in and will be maintained <br />even after the homes are built. He said the CC&Rs would <br />p'ebatIy be revised to encompass the landscaping. <br />Mr, continued to describe the project, further <br />expIainlng about sloping of the lots. noting that they would <br />be dealing with the neighbors on a lot by lot basis. He stepped <br />�m the orawings and further illustrated Phase 2 of the project. <br />Bch Cretch, BlB Sylvaner, stated he had met with Mr. Glenn and <br />with staff' He was in agreement with the staff conditions but <br />stated he was unaware of the 20 ft. greenbelt between the homes <br />and the slope. He was opposed to the visible change to the <br />hillside and did not appreciate the building pads in the yards. <br />Cummi�sioner Hoyt asked Mr. Crutch which lot did his property <br />back up to. Mr- Crutch said lots 10 and 1 touch his property. <br />Cha.rman Li"dsey asked Mr. Crutch if the 20 ft' setback was a <br />new proposel and did he object to it. Mr. Crutch said he could <br />understand both sides, but primarily objected to the grading. <br />He stated he would be looking at an 11 ft. pad from his <br />property. <br />Beth McKnight, 824 ByIvaner Drive, stated that she lived next to <br />Mr. Crutch and that her lot backs up to No 9. She did not <br />understand about the 20 ft. setback. Mr. Qua-cilia said that <br />staff is recommending that grading be on iots 2 to 7 and 10 o <br />13~ but not lots 8 and 9 as there is no room there. <br />Chairman Lindsey asked Ms McKnight how she felt about the <br />proposed dense landscaping. She said she appreciated the <br />landscaping even though it would take a while for it to fill <br />in. =.he brought up a number of points: She did not want <br />eubstantiaI grading done to the lots when they were sold; ehe <br />would like to see the homes placed as close as possible to the <br />front of each ead; she would like to see the homes next to <br />Bylvaner Drive be one-story homes; she would like to see steps <br />Page <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.