My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN051501
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCMIN051501
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2009 4:43:33 PM
Creation date
6/12/2001 9:28:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/15/2001
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
It was moved by Ms. Dennis, seconded by Ms. Ayala, to adopt Resolution No. <br />01-056, approving the 2001 Weed Abatement Program. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Ayala, Campbell, Dennis, Michelotti, and Mayor Pico <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Item 6b <br />PUD=88-15-2M, Richard and Tracy Lu <br />Application for a major modification to PUD-88-16-2M to allow the construction of a <br />seven-foot high solid privacy fence along a portion of the rear property line of an existing <br />residence located at 8031 Bethel Lane. The PUD development plan for this subdivision <br />permits only open fencing along the property, lines. Zoning for the property is PUD-LDR <br />(Planned Unit Development - Low Density Residential) District. (SR 01:118) <br /> <br />Brian Swift presented the staff report. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti clarified that the Planning Commission recommendation was to add <br />lattice to the fence panels that do not currently have it and to add landscaping. She also indicated <br />the fence was about seven feet, which is over the height limit. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said the Commission was aware of that and had asked the Lus to obtain a <br />building permit. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti pointed out that the fence had been constructed before the Lus had <br />purchased this property, with no permit or variance from the PUD conditions. She asked if the <br />variance, which allows the solid fence between the Scott property and its other neighbor, had <br />concurrence by both property owners. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said yes. The PUD required all open fences, and the solid fences that have <br />been built were approved on a case-by-case basis as minor modifications with the agreement of <br />both property owners. This application did not have that agreement. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti commented that in other developments such as Foxbrough Estates, open <br />fencing has been successfully achieved with landscaping. In this case, no agreement has been <br />reached between the property owners, which is why the Planning Commission has referred this <br />case to Council. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala inquired about the oak tree on the Lu property. She also asked if this property <br />was on the list for weed abatement. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated that with native oaks no irrigation is recommended within its drip <br />line. That means no landscaping can be done under oak trees without causing serious harm. He <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 6 05/15/01 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.