My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN100290
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CCMIN100290
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:33 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 11:30:50 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
38 <br /> <br /> that the house would be 55 feet high was arrived at by adding the <br /> different sections of the house that are on different levels of the <br /> hillside, plus the retaining wall at the bottom of the house which <br /> was recommended by the Design Review Board to serve as a planter <br /> box so trees would start growing at the level of the house rather <br /> than farther down the hill. He explained that the maximum <br /> screening effect possible would be achieved by the trees in the <br /> planter box and a maintenance agreement with the City. He <br /> concluded that the house does not violate the CC&Rs and that the <br /> personal concerns expressed by Mr. Herd would be dealt with <br /> separately. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver inquired if the house would be 30 feet from the pad <br /> elevation and how much of the house would be below that level. <br /> <br /> Mr. Etnire replied that the house would have two pads on the <br /> hillside, in addition to a stone retaining wall that would allow <br /> trees to be planted at the pad level in order to achieve the <br /> screening effect sooner. <br /> <br /> Mr. Herd clarified that the 55-foot measurement was from the <br /> top of the structure to the base of the footings of the house and <br /> excludes the retaining wall. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br /> public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes inquired if the decision to be made at this <br /> meeting was whether or not the screening required and as shown <br /> meets what the Council perceived it was supposed to do. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said yes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver commented that based on the information in the <br /> Staff Report regarding the size of the structure, he did not think <br /> it would be possible to screen the house effectively in any <br /> reasonable amount of time. He added that the house is <br /> inappropriate for the site. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer concurred. He commented that the house is too big <br /> for the site and that it could not be screened with the level of <br /> landscaping proposed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes stated that his concern was not so much the size <br /> of the house as its visual impact and the ability to have the <br /> proper landscaping to mitigate that impact satisfactorily. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that she initially envisioned a 36-meter <br /> two-story house which eventually gained more height with subsequent <br /> drawings. She expressed concern that the house was too big for the <br /> <br /> 10-2-90 <br /> - 10 - <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.