Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes <br />Planning Commission <br />September 10, 1986 <br />Jim Coleburn, 18 Grey Eagle Court (Lot No. 8), was concerned that <br />when they selected their lot, it was represented that the hill <br />would remain open. They were given a map showing the building <br />pads. The change now is somewhat distressing to him. He <br />requested a continuance to be allowed to work with the developer <br />and the proposed buyer of the parcel. Chairman Lindsey asked if <br />Mr. Coleburn had been approached by the developer regarding this <br />change. Mr. Coleburn said he was not contacted. <br />Michael O'Callaghan, 4558 Second Street, [(buyer of Lot 23), <br />directly across the street from Lot 14] stated prior to <br />purchasing his property it was represented to him by the <br />developer that all of the ridge land on the top of No. 14 and No. <br />13 would remain open space and undeveloped. He was issued <br />documents in writing which substantiated this fact. Conditions <br />of approval of Case PUD-82-10 are included by reference in their <br />subdivision approval. Any change on the part of the City would <br />be contradiction with the CC&Rs. The homeowners of record should <br />have input into changes made to the CC&Rs. The location of the <br />existing pad on the development plan is a buildable pad. As a <br />contractor, he has built homes in Pleasanton on steep hills. He <br />desires to see hillside construction on the site. He could <br />support a house for the buyers after careful consideration of the <br />siting to protect the views. He could not support all of the <br />cutting that would be needed for the proposed lots. Mr. <br />O'Callaghan said he had talked to the buyer who indicated there <br />would only be a couple of feet cut. Mr. O'Callaghan felt that <br />perhaps the buyer did not know the magnitude of the plan <br />submitted. Mr. O'Callaghan indicated he has written a request to <br />the developer for compromises. Further he didn't believe any of <br />the homeowners of the area are totally against development of <br />this property. The concern is viewsheds and cuts. Mr. <br />O'Callaghan felt the road as redesigned is decent, the pad area <br />for the house is decent, but would like the official pad be <br />limited to the house and not the hill. He agrees with Condition <br />No. 3 as proposed. Last year he personally saw two feet of water <br />down below. If it had been graded earlier on it would have <br />affected the rest of the subdivision. He agreed with Mr. Plummer <br />on the screening. <br />Commissioner Michelotti discussed the orientation of the proposed <br />house with regard to the O'Callaghan site. Mr. O'Callaghan said <br />the proposed house was directly south of his house, but it has <br />since been moved. <br />Randy Black, 3742 Pinot Court, stated that Chairman Lindsey <br />suggested that the matter be handled with staff. She had <br />meetings with the architect and determined the exact house <br />location. They have no intention whatsoever in moving it from <br />that area. It was determined that the front of the lot would be <br />obliterated by the tree. She stated she contacted <br />Mr. O'Callaghan, Sunday, August 10 and told him the location of <br />the rear yard. She said the area will not be as severely cut as <br />Mr. O'Callaghan thinks it will be cut. They desire to have a <br />rear yard for a recreation area, pool and spa. Some areas would <br />have to be cut 20 feet and other areas not cut at all. Since the <br />- 4 - <br />_ T <br />