My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN011999
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
CCMIN011999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:17 AM
Creation date
2/26/1999 10:00:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/19/1999
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
Michael Sesto, 6067 Corte Montanas, could not believe that so much time and energy is <br />being spent on this issue. He drove by the Nelsons' home and did not see anything wrong with the <br />color. He understood the colors not allowed for that area are no bright light, yellow, orange or red. <br />The Nelsons' home is a dark tan. He truly believed the Nelsons' have tried to comply with the <br />ordinance. He recommended that a definite pallet of color be made for the developers to follow. <br />He suggested moving forward and reconsidering the decision. <br /> <br /> Rhea Converse, 3450 Andrews Drive, #215, said it is hard to determine what the stucco <br />color will be after it is applied, He did not see a problem with the Nelsons' color. He mentioned <br />that light colored buildings help with reducing heat buildup on the planet. He thought this issue <br />should be reconsidered. <br /> <br /> Keith Wardin, 234 East Main Street, believed the right thing to do was to support Council's <br />decision, although he has no objection to the color of the house. He was dismayed that the people <br />have not taken the time to read the staff report. The issue is not about the color of the house but the <br />responsibility to follow the rules. Since the Nelsons' have not followed the rules, the decision to <br />deny the appeal is justified. <br /> <br /> Hal Brown, 4244 Waycross Court, believed the Nelsons' home fits into the environment <br />and was an asset to the community. He asked Council to reconsider its decision. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked if the Council would like to reconsider its decision. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis said she would not reconsider her decision. She has tried to be very objective. <br />The issue is the Nelsons' need to comply with the conditions of approval. She based her decision <br />on the information she received from the Nelsons and the color samples. She understood the <br />Planning Commission is reviewing the West Foothill Overlay District guidelines. If those <br />adjustments are in the Nelsons' favor she would look at the Nelsons' issue at that time. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala asked the people to read the staff report in order to understand why she made the <br />decision she made. She would not reconsider her decision. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver said he would not reconsider. He believed the conditions of approval needed <br />to be adhered to for the West Foothill Overlay District. There is a process to change these <br />conditions, but this has not happened. Therefore, he would like the Nelsons to comply with the <br />conditions. He suggested that the people read the staff report, so they can understand the <br />development of Pleasanton and why the colors are important in the West Foothill Overlay District. <br />The public has told Council that they do not want any houses on the ridge, but if there must be <br />houses, then cover them up as much as possible. This is the direction Council gave staff. <br /> <br /> Philip Ciesielski, 4160 Stanley, had concerns with the property at 4128 Stanley. His <br />neighbor has been working without permits on a bam four feet from his property line. He <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 7 01/19/99 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.