My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN080790
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CCMIN080790
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:33 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 11:56:08 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.
/
30
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
406 <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer asked Mr. Schneider if a person on the second floor <br /> dec~ on the right hand side of the house on Lot 20 would be looking <br /> into his yard. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schneider replied that he did not know but that his main <br /> issue is whether or not the house had to be 20 feet back from the <br /> rear line instead of 10 feet or 13 feet, 5 inches. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer asked staff if the setback would be 20 feet without <br /> the deck. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that it would be 10 feet from the corner of <br /> the deck, and 13 feet, 5 inches without the deck. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver inquired if the PUD process for this project <br /> included the tentative map approval and if this was what was voted <br /> on by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to this time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that the PUD process included a condition <br /> that the house siting plans and the building elevations would be <br /> reviewed not by the City Council but by the Planning <br /> Commission,since this would be a custom lot type of subdivision. <br /> The property then changed hands, and Mr. Ken Gooch brought in plans <br /> that included house plans sited on all the lots, including Lot 20, <br /> which siting plans were reviewed and approved by the Planning <br /> Commission. The house siting plan on Lot 20 recognized the fact <br /> that the 20-foot open rear area required by the PUD condition was <br /> met by the layout of the house, which had a 10-foot setback from <br /> the same corner referred to by Mr. Schneider. The builder then <br /> sold the lot for custom building, and the current owner brought in <br /> a site plan that is smaller in footprint than the plan approved by <br /> the Planning Commission. It was staff's interpretation that the <br /> plan was in conformance with that approved by the Planning <br /> Commission. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired if the house was started without a permit. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that the house was originally issued a <br /> permit, upon which a stop-work order was placed because the house <br /> was too large. The house was then redesigned to meet the floor <br /> area requirements. Fifteen days after the Planning Commission <br /> denied Mr. Schneider's appeal, Ms. Shrimali checked with the <br /> Planning Department if any further appeals were filed, and when she <br /> was informed that there were none, she started work on ~he house. <br /> 2.'Ir. Schneider filed an appeal later that same day. <br /> <br /> %4s. ~{ohr commented that the Staff Report stated that a <br /> building permit was reissued on May 31st. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.