My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-87- 69
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
PC-87- 69
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/18/2008 2:40:01 PM
Creation date
5/15/2008 2:05:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/24/1987
DOCUMENT NO
PC-87- 69
DOCUMENT NAME
PUD-82-10-6M
NOTES
GREY EAGLE ESTATES
NOTES 2
DENY MAJOR MOD
NOTES 3
4 RED FEATHER CT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PLEASANTON <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br />RESOLUTION N0. PC-87-69 <br />RESOLUTION DENYING CASE PUD-82-10-6M, GREY EAGLE ESTATES <br />WHEREAS, Thomas Black has applied for a major modification to an <br />approved development plan for a residential subdivision <br />to modify the permitted building envelope for an <br />existing parcel, located at 4 Red Feather Court; and <br />WHEREAS, zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit <br />Development) - Low Density Residential District; and <br />WHEREAS, at its meeting of June 24, 1987, the Planning Commission <br />considered all public testimony, relevant exhibits and <br />recommendations of the City staff concerning this <br />application; and <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission concurs with the recommendation <br />of the City Staff that: the previously approved pad <br />relocation was an equitable compromise that was proposed <br />by the property owner, accepted by the affected adjacent <br />property owners and meets all requirements of the City's <br />Fire and Planning Departments. The proposed plan <br />regresses from these goals and would result in a <br />development plan that has more impacts than the approved <br />plan. The proposed plan results in the conversion of <br />hillside lot into a more typical lot that would be <br />located in a flatter subdivision. Regardless of the <br />property size, it is felt that the plan proposes too <br />much flat yard development for this hillside lot; and <br />WHEREAS, the previous plan could still be accommodated on the <br />site. The City is willing to work with the applicant to <br />revise the design of the access driveway for purposes of <br />minimizing the amount of grading and cost. However, the <br />pad location should remain as approved by the City <br />Council; and <br />WHEREAS, the surrounding property owners within the Grey Eagle <br />Estates subdivision have a right to some level of <br />stability concerning t:he means by which the subdivision <br />is developed. The majority of land owners within the <br />development purchased and developed their parcels with <br />the understanding that development would be allowed per <br />the approved final map. It is not appropriate to create <br />a situation whereby the existing land owners have to <br />constantly worry about the possibility of changes to the <br />approved plan after the fact. <br />- 1 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.