My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN110392 (2)
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN110392 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:02 AM
Creation date
10/28/1999 11:31:13 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.
/
16
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
170 <br /> <br /> Mr. Salmon answered yes. <br /> <br /> Brigitte Ben, 668 Orofino Court, spoke in opposition to this <br /> application. She explained that she and Ms. Bottorff, a neighbor, <br /> met with Mr. Salmon last evening to try to solve this problem and <br /> did not come to a completely satisfactory resolution. The <br /> discussion ended with Mr. Salmon agreeing to the following <br /> conditions: 1) he will pay for trees to be planted on Ms. <br /> Bottorff's property, up to $750 maximum; 2) he will remove the <br /> windows of the gazebo facing the Bens' property and replace them <br /> with wood; 3) the front windows are to be replaced with glass; 4) <br /> he may screen the pavilion with the landscape of his choice, 5) he <br /> will sign a document to be recorded which will include that upon <br /> sale of the property, the structure will be removed down to the <br /> deck, stairs and the spa, with a railing around the entire deck. <br /> Ms. Ben and Ms. Bottorff preferred the deck be removed and the PUD <br /> conditions modified so that this could not happen again. <br /> <br /> Dorothy Bottorff, 2927 Victoria Meadow Court, read excerpts <br /> from the Planning Commission minutes included in the staff report. <br /> She explained how obtrusive this structure is to her view from her <br /> home. She was concerned that other homes with the same hill <br /> location as Mr. Salmon's can build these types of structures as <br /> well. She asked that the PUD be modified to prevent that from <br /> happening. <br /> <br /> Mr. Salmon reiterated that it was his intent to built a legal <br /> structure. He was not aware that this structure was not legal <br /> until complaints were made. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler asked if Mr. Salmon was in agreement with the <br /> conditions stated by Ms. Ben. <br /> <br /> Mr. Salmon answered yes. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br /> public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked if it was possible for Council to require <br /> the applicant to remove the building and change the PUD conditions <br /> to prevent this from happening in the future. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush explained that he would rather explain the City's <br /> legal position in a closed session. The issue is complex and he <br /> did not want to give Council legal advice in public. <br /> <br /> Council adjourned to closed session at 9:25 p.m. <br /> The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler believed that Council should try to resolve this <br /> situation in favor of the other homeowners. He agreed with Council <br /> approving the application with conditions agreed to by the <br /> <br /> 11/3/92 12 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.