My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN082190
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CCMIN082190
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:33 AM
Creation date
11/3/1999 9:54:20 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.
/
26
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
431 <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes stated that the procedure provides that issues <br />would be handled administratively unless a conflict between the two <br />parties is not resolved, in which case the matter would go to <br />Council. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer asked Mr. Suer what he intended to do on the graded <br />area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Suer replied that the landscape plan, which is currently <br />in the process of being drawn, includes a patio area with shrubs <br />going across the elevation to form a hedge and steps going down the <br />lower area, but no elevated decks. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes told Mr. Suer that since he had no plans to build <br />any above-ground structure on the elevation, there should be no <br />problem regarding the conditions of approval. <br /> <br /> Mr. Suer replied that although he had no plans to build a <br />deck, he did not want any more conditions on the property than what <br />was already provided by the CC&Rs and in the requirements of the <br />zoning district, in case he decided to sell the property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired if the proposed conditions of approval for <br />the regrading were already part of the project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that the existing conditions of approval <br />refer to any change in the grading of the lots. He explained that <br />the proposed conditions do not require anything more than what is <br />currently approved, but would clarify that any kind of above-ground <br />structure in the back yard would be subject to review. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that the existing conditions indicate that <br />no above-ground structures would be allowed near fences in those <br />areas along neighboring properties. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br />public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes inquired if staff could have a precise wording on <br />that clarification. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that the precise wording is included in <br />Condition No. 3 of the Conditions of Approval. He added that if <br />Council approves the resolution with the conditions, Condition No. <br />8 would require the property owner to enter into an agreement or <br />declaration of restrictions which will put these conditions into a <br />document that would be recorded. This would put a future buyer on <br />notice that the property owner would need to go through a City <br />process if an above-ground structure were put in the back yard. <br /> <br /> 8-21-90 <br /> - 7 - <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.