My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN021798
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
CCMIN021798
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:27 AM
Creation date
2/3/1999 3:53:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/17/1998
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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).
View images
View plain text
to go through the design review process. However, the standard conditions could apply to the <br />detached units. Therefore, a blanket use permit could apply to either or both. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if the Specific Plan, when adopted in 1992, called out the specific <br />width of the "A" road configuration and is it the same as what the requirement is today? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said the width of the road, the actual right-of-way, was specified in the <br />Specific Plan and that is the same as today. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti referred to the financing plan that was adopted to pay for the road and <br />asked if there was any difference in the size of the road now? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said earlier versions of the Specific Plan had proposed a four lane road, but <br />the street was reduced in width. Staff believes that when that change in the street width <br />occurred, there was no discussion about who would pay for that portion of the road. What is <br />being built in the Greenbriar and New Cities developments is typical of these type of <br />developments. Therefore, the properties being developed would only pay for the road through <br />that project. The road in the area west of the Greenbriar property should be a shared cost. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti reiterated that all the properties from Greenbriar's project to Sunol <br />Boulevard would participate in the road funding. She asked if staff foresaw the setbacks on the <br />north side of Sycamore Road being the same (as listed in the PUD) throughout the project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said the Specific Plan calls for a setback of approximately 75 feet, but allows <br />for each parcel to be reviewed on a case by case basis. Given the topography on some lots, it <br />is not always possible to meet all the setbacks and the lot size requirements with the number of <br />units as is allowed under the Specific Plan. Staff has included in the conditions of approval <br />reduced setbacks across the Moreira property as part of the approval of the PUD. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti was looking for consistency throughout the project. She mentioned the <br />lots were designated low density. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said each parcel would be considered on a case by case basis for setbacks. <br />The parcels are designated low density on the General Plan; the Specific Plan allows two units <br />per acre. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala clarified that the properties west to Sunol Boulevard would not participate in <br />the cost sharing unless they developed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said only new development would participate. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver said he was inundated with material related to this application. He felt he <br />did not have all the information as to how the application relates to the Specific Plan, especially <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 2/17/98 <br />Minutes 7 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.