My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
14 ATTACHMENT 05
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
052008
>
14 ATTACHMENT 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/15/2008 2:41:16 PM
Creation date
5/15/2008 2:41:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
5/20/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
14 ATTACHMENT 05
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
ATTACHMENT 5 <br />DRAFT <br />PUD-91-O1-OSM, Steven and Suzanne Spencer <br />Application for a major modification to an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) <br />development plan to reduce the rear yard setback from the required 20 feet to 5 feet and <br />the side yard setback from the required 10 feet to 5 feet for a pool in the rear yard of the <br />existing residence located at 8031 Oak Creek Drive. Zoning for the property is <br />PUD-R/LDR (Planned Unit Development - RuraULow Density Residential) District. <br />Ms. Amos summarized the staff report and described the background, scope, and layout of the <br />proposed project. <br />Commissioner Olson inquired if there were any global requirements in this development relating <br />to the four options presented. Ms. Amos replied that Condition No. 3 of Exhibit B includes <br />Condition No. 8 of PUD-99-O1, which show the current standard developments (struck text) and <br />the proposed modifications for the options (highlighted text). She explained that for the most <br />part, Lot 8 would follow the standards for Lots 3-9, 11, and 12, which require 10-foot side yard <br />and 20-foot rear yard setbacks for all Class I and Class II accessory structures. <br />Commissioner Narum requested confirmation of her understanding that the distance between the <br />Besso house to the property line is 20 feet and an additional five feet to the edge of the pool. She <br />inquired what the distance was from the bottom edge of the pool to the Spencer house. <br />Ms. Amos replied that it was 29.9 feet. Commissioner Narum then inquired what the distance <br />would be from Spencer house to the pool if it were shifted downward and staying outside of the <br />20-foot setback. Ms. Amos replied that it was approximately 15 feet. <br />In response to Chair Blank's inquiry if it was the Bessos who requested that the spa be moved, <br />Ms. Amos said yes. She added that the spa was part of the pool, and the request was to flip the <br />design of the pool such that the location of the spa would mirror the Bessos' spa on the other side <br />of the fence to provide more privacy. Ms. Amos indicated that staff does not have a preference <br />with respect to the location of the spa. <br />Chair Blank observed that it would appear there would be less privacy if people use the spas at <br />the same time. <br />Commissioner Fox disclosed that she had met with the applicant. <br />Commissioner Pearce disclosed that she had met with the applicant and with Mrs. Besso. <br />Commissioner Olson disclosed that he had met with the applicant. <br />Commissioner Narum disclosed that she had met with the applicant and with Mr. and Mrs. <br />Besso. <br />Commissioner O'Connor disclosed that he had met with Mrs. Spencer and with Mrs. Besso. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br />DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 4-9-2008 Page 1 of 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.