My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN100692
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN100692
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:02 AM
Creation date
10/28/1999 11:26:24 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.
/
24
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
79 <br /> <br />the notice and appeal process and presented Council with a sample <br />notice to be used in the event a property owner wishes to do <br />something within the easement in the future. Mr. MacDonald further <br />indicated satisfaction with the process whereby noncontroversial <br />items would be dealt with by staff and any controversial item would <br />receive full public hearing. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr inquired why the exclusive easements were not simply <br />included in the lots. <br /> <br /> Mr. MacDonald did not know. Mr. MacDonald indicated no <br />building was wanted in the area of the easement. <br /> <br /> Mr. Capilla handed a copy of a portion of the CC&Rs regarding <br />the easement and a map showing the location of the desired pool. <br />Mr. Capilla indicated Mr. Karn had bought the home because he <br />wanted a pool in a particular spot and his realtor had assured him <br />the CC&Rs would allow it. He further stated the easement was put <br />in place to restrict where a house could be built and that no <br />structure such as a garage, barn or other structure could be built <br />in the open space easement. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br />public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver indicated he had appealed this matter because the <br />definitions of accessory structure were pretty wide in terms of <br />retaining walls and lighting, etc. He did not have a problem with <br />a swimming pool or anything not visible. His concern was with the <br />kinds of structures that could go up there. He had hoped Council <br />would discuss swimming pools and open fencing rather than opening <br />up everything that could be built in those exclusive easements. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr shared Mr. Tarver's concerns about what happens on <br />that pretty hillside. The guidelines in the staff report and <br />staff's review appear to address those concerns effectively. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Ms. Scribner, that <br />Resolution No. 92-193 be adopted, denying the appeal by City <br />Council thereby upholding the approval of the application of <br />Richard Karn for a minor modification to the approved Planned Unit <br />Development at Twelve Oaks Drive, to allow the formation of <br />exclusive easements within the open space area for the construction <br />of miscellaneous accessory structures and other improvement by <br />individual lot owners. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Mchr, Scribner, Tarver and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: Councilmember Butler <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />10/6/92 5 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.