My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
14 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
120208
>
14 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/25/2008 12:22:00 PM
Creation date
11/25/2008 12:09:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
12/2/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
14 ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
103
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
~,... <br />~~ <br />MINUTES <br />ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING <br />Pleasanton, California <br />Small Conference Room <br />200 Old Bernal Avenue, Pleasanton <br />Thursday, April 16, 2008 <br />CALL TO ORDER <br />The meeting was called to order at 3:30p.m. by Donna Decker, Zoning Administrator. <br />Present: Steven Jeffrey, Applicant; Lisa and Greg Johnston, neighbors at <br />3110 Catawba Court; Nelson Lam, neighbor at 3105 Catawba Court; <br />Donna Decker, Zoning Administrator; and Natalie Amos, Assistant Planner; <br />PDR-715, Steven and Nicole Jeffrey <br />Application for design review approval to regrade the rear yard and provide <br />landscaping in the yard area located at 927 Montevino Drive. Zoning for the <br />property is R-1-65 (Single Family Residential) District. <br />Ms. Decker outlined the process that was described in the previous approvals. Those <br />approvals indicated that any grading of the lots within that subdivision needed to be <br />considered by the City Council for action. She noted after considerable internal <br />discussions, Staff had determined that the project would be heazd by the Zoning <br />Administrator. <br />Ms. Decker stated that although the project had been noticed as a hearing, it appeared that <br />the applicant and neighbors should use this time to provide comments and that the hearing <br />would be rescheduled to accommodate the discussion and resolution of the neighbor's <br />concerns. <br />Ms. Johnston explained that when they moved in 22 years ago, privacy was a significant <br />issue that was the main discussion. She stated than an agreement had been made that <br />considered lots 1 through 4 and lot 16 were "impact lots" and these lots were sloped and <br />required landscape screening. She mentioned that the CC&R's and the conditions for the <br />tract do not allow grading, but noted that they would be willing to work with the applicant <br />to obtain the goals the applicant has. She also stated that the grading plan submitted is not <br />a tme indication of the grade in the southern part of the yazd and wished that the applicant <br />would provide a more accurate grading plan reflecting the proposed retaining wall. <br />Ms. Decker asked where the trees were planted and what kinds or species of trees were <br />planted. <br />ZA Hearing, PDR-715 April 16, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.