My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN121592
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN121592
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:02 AM
Creation date
10/28/1999 11:36:34 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.
/
28
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
238 <br /> <br /> the aesthetic and visibility issues. She felt that some discretion <br /> is appropriate. If this is not the kind of neighborhood where top <br /> end houses are appropriate, then she felt there was not anywhere <br /> else in town which was appropriate either. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked if the limitation would only apply to those <br /> homes in the high visibility area. Those homes that are not in the <br /> high visibility area could be built over 7,000 square feet. He <br /> then asked what the status of the houses that are already in <br /> process. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift answered yes to the first question. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush explained that the property owners that have <br /> building permits have a vested right to continue. Those property <br /> owners that have Design Review approval, but have not received <br /> building permits, have an argument that they have a vested right. <br /> The applicants whose homes have not received Design Review approval <br /> or building permits may have relied upon the existing guidelines. <br /> Some modification to the guidelines may not raise a serious <br /> question, but if Council were to reduce the house size from 7,000 <br /> to 3,500 square feet, there could be a problem. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr felt that removing discretion from the process, and <br /> the Council's opportunity to address an individual application, <br /> unnecessarily constrains the process. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Ms. Scribner, that <br /> no modifications be made to the guidelines as currently exist. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner amended the motion, and it was seconded by Mr. <br /> Pico, that Resolution No. 92-228 be adopted, rescinding Resolution <br /> No. 92-76, and establishing a 7,000 square foot maximum with an 800 <br /> square foot garage; should the garage exceed the 800 square feet, <br /> the excess area counts toward the 7,000 square foot structure size; <br /> said restrictions to apply to those properties that have not <br /> submitted an application for Design Review approval. <br /> <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Councilmembers Pico, Scribner and Mayor Tarver <br /> NOES: Councilmember Mohr <br /> ABSENT: None <br /> ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Council recessed at 9:10 p.m. for a break. <br /> <br /> Council reconvened at 9:15 p.m. <br /> <br /> 12/15/92 12 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.