My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 011409
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
PC 011409
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:39:22 PM
Creation date
3/20/2009 2:48:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/14/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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
land is not going to be public, but that given approval of the density, she feels the <br />developer should provide something in return. <br />In response to Commissioner Blank's inquiry if there were other lots in Happy Valley <br />that were less than one acre, Ms. Decker replied that there were. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that he has seen in other developments where lot <br />lines could have been drawn into what is now open space to provide larger lots and <br />then designate it as building pad area. He noted that off of Vineyard Avenue, there <br />are five-acre lots with only a 30,000- or 40,000-square-foot living pads. He noted <br />that the same thing could have been done here, but the developer has reserved that <br />land as HOA property as opposed to showing it as part of the actual plan. He stated <br />that he felt they could make them all one-acre lots, but this would make it more <br />complicated and would result in the same end product. <br />Commissioner Blank felt it would be very easy to redraw the property lines so the <br />lots meet the one-acre requirement, but nothing would really be accomplished. <br />Commissioner O'Connor agreed. <br />Commissioner Narum asked Mr. Jost to comment on Condition No. 47 with respect <br />to the Happy Valley Road. Mr. Jost stated that this would be subject to Alameda <br />County's jurisdiction. He added that the City would require the developer to submit <br />plans and obtain an encroachment permit forwork that needs to be done, but it <br />would be done subject to the County's standards. He noted that based on the last <br />project, there would not be much road widening. <br />Commissioner Narum then inquired what the improvement was, and Mr. Jost replied <br />that the basic property owner was required to reconstruct the road, but the road itself <br />did not get much wider than what it currently is. He noted that it was slightly <br />widened slightly on the project side but not on the opposite side of the street. <br />Commissioner Narum inquired if this would be the same as what Condition No. 47 <br />would do to the project. Mr. Jost confirmed that it would. <br />Commissioner Pearce stated that she agreed with Commissioners Blank, Olson, and <br />O'Connor that it meets the intent of the Specific Plan and added that she thinks that <br />given it is five lots on a ten-acre parcel, there would be one lot per two gross acres. <br />She indicated that she understood the exception and limitations of the parcel and <br />that she likes the way the project is laid out. She added that she likes the open <br />space which meets the rural character of the area. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 14, 2009 Page 14 of 35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.