My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 011007
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
PC 011007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 3:28:53 PM
Creation date
8/17/2007 10:04:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/10/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Chairperson Fox moved to reopen the public hearing . <br />Commissioner Olson seconded the motion. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br /> <br />AYES: Commissioners Blank, Fox, O’Connor, Olson, and Pearce. <br />NOES: None. <br />ABSTAIN: None. <br />RECUSED: None. <br />ABSENT: None. <br /> <br />The motion passed. <br /> <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Jardin noted that the problem would be solved if the retaining wall on Mr. Nespor’s <br />side were taller so the wall could be pushed back farther. He noted that when he spoke to <br />the City inspector about the right of way, he was told it would not infringe at all into his <br />property. He would try to get a letter from the inspector to confirm his understanding of <br />that assurance. He noted that no one ever staked the area. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson noted that staff had responded to Mr. Jardin’s attorney letter and provided <br />copies of the drawings and the grant deeds signed by Mr. Jardin. Staff had not heard <br />from Mr. Jardin’s attorney since then. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank noted that there appeared to be a legally-binding agreement that had <br />been reviewed by the City and that he did not want to be involved with that aspect in the <br />event of future litigation. He did not believe that was within the purview of the Planning <br />Commission. He urged caution in this matter and noted that the Planning Commission <br />could not change the routing of that street as a condition of approval. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank about noises generated by legally-kept <br />wildlife, Ms. Harryman noted that a deed disclosure could be required. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding the possible impact if <br />Condition No. 58 were changed to 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m., Ms. Giffin replied that could <br />be expanded to specifically state “construction traffic.” <br /> <br />Commissioner O’Connor suggested that the language be changed to address the arrival of <br />garbage trucks within the specified hours. <br /> <br />Chairperson Fox noted that a stone chimney was specified for Lot 2, but the conditions <br />were silent for the other lots. She requested that the conditions be changed to call out <br />stone chimneys for those lots and include the color of the top of the chimneys. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 2007 Page 8 of 27 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.