My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN101888
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
CCMIN101888
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:51:11 AM
Creation date
11/3/1999 11:22:27 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.
/
18
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
259 <br /> <br />accessory structure that encroaches into the required sideyard <br />setback of the property located at 6824 Corte de Flores. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmember Brandes and Mayor Mercer , <br />NOES: Councilmembers Butler and Wilson <br />ABSENT: Councilmember Mohr <br /> <br /> Because of the tie vote, Mayor Mercer declared this item <br />continued to the meeting of November 1, 1988, 7:30 p.m., in the <br />Pleasanton Council Chambers. <br /> <br />item 9d <br />AP-88-25, Appeal of a decision of the Design Review Board denying <br />approval of Case Z-88-344, the application of Ken Gooch for design <br />review approval to construct fences greater than six feet in <br />height located at 1608 Martin Avenue and 3616 Nichole Avenue. <br />Zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development)-Low <br />Density Residential District <br /> Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 88:500) dated October 18, <br />1988, regarding this matter. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open on this item. <br /> <br /> Mr. Steve McKinley, 1608 Martin Avenue, stated he just put in <br />a swimming pool and would like to install eight foot high fencing <br />to provide privacy and protection. He stated the only opposition <br />is from a resident one-half mile down on Martin Avenue. <br /> <br /> Mr. Steve Mattos, 3616 Nichole Avenue, stated the eight foot <br />fence is more desirable because of the privacy issue; there is a <br />horse stable behind him, tennis courts that are night lighted, and <br />his neighbor has a raised patio area. He is also concerned about <br />safety: there are seven children in the area with more moving in - <br />the eight foot fence will be more prohibitive in keeping children <br />from climbing over the fence. He stated the fences will be <br />attractive and well built; no one objects to them except a <br />resident several blocks away. <br /> <br /> Mr. Stanley Rathbone, 325 Ray Street, wondered why people who <br />know the restrictions when they buy a residence complain when <br />variances are not allowed. <br /> <br /> Mr. David Pingh stated this issue has been around a long <br />time. He stated that with the setdown the fence will only be <br />seven feet high, it will be an attractive fence, and with <br />landscaping it will not be one continuous concrete tunnel as <br />stated by an opponent, and will not detract from the value of the <br />homes. He stated the safety factor is a very important issue which <br />should be taken into consideration. <br /> <br /> Mr. John Vanderoovart, 4934 Monaco Drive, stated he endorses <br />these homeowners, and he only sees their homes when he goes to <br />work. <br /> <br /> - 13 - <br /> <br /> 10-18-88 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.