My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN061990
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CCMIN061990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:34 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 11:48:38 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.
/
33
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
280 <br /> <br />6. PUBLIC HEARINGS <br />Item 6a <br />RZ-90-5. West Foothill Road Corridor Overlay District. Application <br />of the City of Pleasanton to Create an Overlay District <br />Establishing Development Standards, Design Regulations, and <br />Related Matters Applicable to the Foothill Road Corridor and to <br />Apply These Regulations to Properties Along the Western Side of <br />Foothill Road, Between the Road and the 670 Foot Elevation Contour <br />Line Generaliv. from Dublin Canyon Road on the North to Lands of <br />EBRPD on the South <br /> <br />Consider Adoption of a Negative Declaration <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 90:249) regarding the <br />matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the <br />application. <br /> <br /> Mr. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, handed the <br />Councilmembers a letter from Mr. Donald L. Wallace, written on <br />behalf of the Mollers, indicating that the proposed ordinance did <br />not include wording which would give the City's reviewing <br />authority the flexibility to allow modification on a case-to-case <br />basis and suggesting the addition of a clarifying sentence to the <br />end of Section 18.78.050. Procedures. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes asked the City Attorney to comment on the <br />suggestion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated that he did not see any problem with Mr. <br />Wallace's proposal. He added that Mr. Wallace's language is more <br />specific than, but in keeping with the intent of, the <br />"feasibility" language added by staff upon the recommendation of <br />the Planning Commission. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fred Hempy, 5000 Foothill Road, stated that he was glad <br />that the overlay district guidelines were being established. He <br />commented that the provision under Section 18.78.080. Subdivision <br />design. A. Open Space Between Lot Clusters, allowing no more than <br />three lots to exist in a cluster of lots, was arbitrary. He said <br />that for certain areas, it would be more appropriate to develop <br />very small perpendicular ridges that would run down the hill with <br />canyons on both sides, instead of having parallel ridges. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes asked Mr. Roush if Mr. Hempy's concerns would be <br />addressed by the language suggested in Mr. Wallace's letter. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said that it would. <br /> <br />- 4 - <br /> <br />6-19-90 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.