My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN011993
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
CCMIN011993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:51 AM
Creation date
10/28/1999 11:02:43 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.
/
26
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
57 <br /> <br />district which does not go away. To the extent there are homeowner <br />committees, it depends on how the CC&Rs are set up. Typically, <br />those set up 20-25 years ago will not have an on-going purpose. <br />Homeowners Associations generally do not continue unless there is <br />common area which must be maintained. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico was concerned about protection of homeowners who rely <br />on CC&Rs and how the City can insure that the CC&R requirements are <br />enforced. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated the City enforces zoning regulations, but <br />enforcement of the CC&Rs are civil matters which are not part of <br />the zoning regulations. There is a difference when there is common <br />area and the city has an interest in seeing that that is <br />maintained. In that case, the City is a party to the CC&Rs so it <br />can enforce them. He further stated that the residents can go to <br />court if they do not agree that this addition meets the <br />requirements of the CC&Rs. Mr. Swift indicated the design review <br />process is to notify the neighbors of design and privacy issues. <br />Usually privacy is the more important issue. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tash indicated the trees were for privacy of the Vaughns, <br />not to block the view of the building. Mr. Schmit's opinion is his <br />personal view of aesthetics. Mr. Tash has received approval all <br />along and during the entire process has used design professionals. <br />He further stated that a representative from Morrison Homes had <br />looked at the plans and stated it was in keeping with other <br />Morrison Homes in the neighborhood. He has not seen any of the <br />exhibits presented by Mr. Schmit. He confirmed that the house was <br />for sale and it was not a facade. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr inquired about what shadow would be cast by the <br />house. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tash said the Vaughn property would be blocked in the <br />morning only. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, the public hearing was <br />closed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr indicated these are never easy issues by the time <br />they come to Council. When a two-story house is proposed, there is <br />a concern because of the upper windows. Two story houses are <br />normal and this applicant has really gone the extra mile to <br />accommodate the neighborhood. She could not find anything in the <br />application that warrants rejection of the addition. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico was concerned that the Design Review Board did not <br />agree with the design, however approved it because it met the Code <br />requirements. He was also distressed that the CC&Rs were not <br /> <br />01/19/93 7 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.