My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 02/09/83
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
PC 02/09/83
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:26:30 AM
Creation date
4/27/2007 4:49:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/9/1983
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 02/09/83
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
responded that they apparently do nOt have any problems with <br />the proposals. <br />Commissioner Jamieson asked if Unit$ 4, 5, and 7 set back <br />10' to 12'. Mr. Harris explained R+1 zoning is 20' but that <br />the PUD has some of the structures proposed at an angle with <br />the corner of one of the units comimg to within 10' of the <br />property line. Commissioner Jamieson indicated that he <br />thought rear yard setback referred to the entire length of the <br />rear of the structures. Mr. Harris confirmed that this is <br />generally true except when there is plenty of rear yard open <br />space; he stated that the structure proposed is not parallel <br />to the property line. <br />Commissioner Wilson addressed the odd structure on the 0.8 acre <br />property and asked if it would remain. Mr. Barbee said it is <br />an old Kennel and Dr. Connolly stood up from the audience and <br />said the structure would remain. <br />Mr. Barbee addressed Lot 4 and that it is 12' off set from <br />the property line to stairways and that the average backyard <br />is a good deal more than 20'; No. 5 is 35' and that the windows <br />are oriented to such a way that no one will be looking at other <br />homes. He presented pictures showing the elevations of the <br />proposal and their relationship to other homes. <br />Commissioner Jamieson expressed a concern with blocking neighbors' <br />views; he stated the proposals, with regard to perspective and <br />if you go up to 27' or 30' high, will block the neighbors' views. <br />Mr. Barbee explained that the buildings will be lower than ground <br />level. He further indicated that the majority of any one unit is <br />mostly single story and that only a small portion of each building <br />would be two stories. He said the second story balconies of the <br />existing homes would not be affected and that the only thing which <br />would be affected would be the first story balconies. <br />Vic Lund presented a color landscaping plan. He said the mainte- <br />nance will be under the homeowners association and maintained by <br />a maintenance company. He said a backyard will be provided for <br />each unit, privately maintained, the only thing maintained in <br />that manner. He explained the exterior color, pads, textures <br />of the proposal. He said that inside each unit the cabinets will <br />be made of oak. He said the units have been specifically designed <br />to appear like single-family homes with two garages. He said he <br />would be happy to answer any questions. <br />Commissioner Wilson spoke to Condition No. 21 regarding storm <br />drains. Mr. Lund explained that they plan to design the project <br />around that. He indicated that they basically agree with the <br />staff report with minor modification and because of Growth <br />Management requirements do not want. to wait for another year. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.