My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN020795
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCMIN020795
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:18 AM
Creation date
5/20/1999 10:55:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
The lot size and driveway apron size of the new development were discussed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr wanted to make sure the pedestrian crossing near the railroad track was safe. <br /> The property line to the middle of the creek was also briefly discussed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis raised questions regarding Fish & Game issues concerning the trail and <br />crossing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bates indicated the site superintendent and biologist met with Fish & Game last <br />Monday on the site. The storm water drainage outlet and bunker were discussed. The Fish & <br />Game Department would want any trail system cut with a shovel, not with heavy equipment. <br />The placement of the stepping stones for minimal maintenance was discussed. Fish & Game <br />wants to review and approve the maintenance plan for the banks, but had no recommendations <br />for plant life. Mr. Bates confirmed that Fish & Game did not respond to the access for the <br />handicapped question; he understood that work still needs to be done with the City to design an <br />acceptable pathway and crossway. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if the location of the crossing was a concern of Fish & Game. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bates stated this was not discussed, but the crossing discussed was based on Fish & <br />Game's design standards. <br /> <br /> A stepping stone concept from Sunset Magazine was mentioned. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mayor Tarver closed the public hearing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift clarified staff's use of the term "amenity". He indicated the staff allowed the <br />area of the arroyo to count toward the area of the property to calculate density. The City has <br />in the past allowed arroyo areas to count toward the density of a project. The City has never <br />counted the dedication of an Arroyo to Zone 7, with the City having the recreational easement <br />over it, as the amenity package tbr density purposes beyond the mid-point. The setbacks as <br />proposed indicate the front yard will have a minimum of 15 feet for two models and 16 feet six <br />inches for the others, with driveways being 18 to 20 feet long. The average setback is probably <br />going to be more than that. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr requested clarification that the setback is measured from the edge of the <br />property line; she was told it is measured from the back of the sidewalk with sidewalk and a <br />planter strip in front. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver raised a questions about the setbacks and height of the condominiums on <br />Division Street. <br /> <br />02/07/95 <br /> 16- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.