Laserfiche WebLink
ty Pleasan t..on <br /> T FF <br /> EPORT <br /> I <br /> <br /> April 15, 1986 <br /> <br />HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />Pleasanton, California <br /> <br />AP-86-03, Appeal by the City Council of a Decision of the Board of <br />Adjustment Approving the Application of James McDowell <br /> <br />Members of the Council: <br /> <br />Background <br /> <br />James and Susan McDowell, owners of the 15,510 square foot lot at <br />435 Neal Street, applied to the City for approval of a minor <br />subdivision to split their parcel into two parcels. A variance <br />from the Municipal Code was required prior to the subdivision <br />because neither lot would have access on a public street. At their <br />meeting of March 10, 1986, the Board of Adjustment made the <br />required findings and approved the variance for the McDowells. <br />Your Council subsequently appealed the action of the Board of <br />Adjustment. Please see the attached staff report to the Board of <br />Adjustment for a detailed discussion of the proposal. <br /> <br />Analysis of Issues <br /> <br />At the time the variance application was heard at the Board of <br />Adjustment meeting, the main issues raised by staff were the <br />potential hazards arising from the driveway access and the <br />increased impact on neighboring property owners du~ to the more <br />intensive land usage. The access road, which currently serves only <br />the Foust residence, will eventually be utilized by the two <br />additional houses that will be built south of the Foust residence. <br />If the McDowell subdivision is approved, one additional household <br />will eventually use the same access. Staff had concerns that the <br />egress from the driveway onto Neal Street was somewhat hazardous <br />and that increased use of the road would unnecessarily increase the <br />hazard. At the meeting of March 10 the applicant and his technical <br />advisor satisfied the Board of Adjustment that the driveway has <br />sufficient visibility and that the potential increase in traffic <br />was not significant. <br /> <br />Page 1 <br />SR 86:131 <br /> <br /> <br />