My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN090595
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCMIN090595
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:18 AM
Creation date
5/20/1999 11:33:23 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.
/
30
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
Mr. Mershel agreed. They do not intend to add any additional square footage to the <br />main house and will not build any accessory structures. It would be for a subsequent owner who <br />purchases one of the homes and decides to build later a pool cabana or tool shed. <br /> <br /> The public hearing was closed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr commented that these large lots are the types where a significant number of <br />homeowners put in pools. It is not unusual for large lot homes to have a cabana type building <br />for a changing room/shower. To require that the homeowners on these lots come back for a <br />PUD modification, one at a time, seems to be an unfair burden, when their neighbors might be <br />able to come in with their permit for the pool and cabana building without having to go through <br />the process. With respect to the sidewalks on one side of the street, Trenery Drive doesn't have <br />any sidewalks and is charming. Doing the project with sidewalks on one side of the street, <br />seemed to be a way to help support a more rural type atmosphere. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Mohr, seconded by Ms. Michelotti, that Ordinance No. 1660 be <br />introduced, to be read by title only and waiving further reading thereof, approving the <br />application of New Cities Development Group for a major modification to the approved PUD <br />development plan and design guidelines to increase the maximum floor area ratio on specific lots <br />by 5% and to reduce the required combined side yards on one lot from 30' to 20', as filed under <br />case PUD-92-01 - 1M. <br /> <br />Th~ roll Call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, and Mayor Tarver <br />NOES: Councilmember Pico <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Item 6e <br />RZ-95-03 - Michael and Linda K!iment <br />Application to rezone an approximately 1.153 acre parcel from the "Agricultural" Dis/rict <br />and the "Planned Unit Development - Low Density Residential" District to R-l-40,000 <br />(Sinl~!e-Familv Residential - Minimum 40,000 sq. ft. lot size. (SR95:283) <br /> <br /> Mr. Brian Swift presented the staff report. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked why staff did not recommend PUD zoning. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that the property was originally annexed as an agricultural piece of <br />property that is one acre in size. The Kliment property is a developed parcel which is not <br />capable of being subdivided. Mr. Swift stated that the two lots to the west of the Kliment <br />property are zoned R-I-40,000. PUD zoning is used when a parcel may be subdivided in the <br />future. <br /> <br />09/05/95 - 13- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.