My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN040400
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
CCMIN040400
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:31 AM
Creation date
4/20/2000 3:10:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/4/2000
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN040400
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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
approved PUDs. The Planning Commission recommendation appears to be contrary to <br />that. He believed the staff recommendation was not to change approved PUDs. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swirl said that was basically correct. The Lemoine PUD is approved, has a <br />tentative map and is vested. These roles only apply the intent of the guidelines. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked if the Planning Commission was informed of the significance <br />of staying with the 1999 date. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swirl did not think so. He believed the Planning Commission felt that if <br />properties were approved for development between 1990 and whatever the effective date <br />of this ordinance, that there were certain standards to be used because of the overlay <br />district and those should not disappear because more restrictive rules are subsequently <br />adopted. However, in every case where there has been a subdivision between 1990 and <br />the year 2000, the application of the overlay district regulations have been applicable to <br />the subdivisions, so in effect they have been implemented during that time. The only <br />thing left are the lots not yet developed and the intent of the new guidelines would be <br />applied. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rowe believed the Planning Commission' s intent then was the same as staff <br />that an approved PUD would stay in place. <br /> <br />Mr. Swirl said that was correct. <br /> <br /> Tom Boock, 45543 Parkmeadow Court, Fremont, indicated he had purchased <br />property at 8053 Bethel Lane. He inquired ifPUD-88-16 was still in effect. A year ago <br />almost all those lots were empty. His property is now the last one to be built upon. He <br />assumed the proposed overlay district guidelines would not apply to his property and <br />asked for clarification. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swirl said if the new guidelines are adopted prior to Mr. Boock's obtaining <br />design approval for his future house, then the spirit of the new guidelines would apply. If <br />he brings his plans in sooner, then the spirit of the current overlay district guidelines <br />would apply. But the standards of either guideline do not apply at all because it is a pre- <br />existing lot of record. The setbacks, floor area ratio rules, height, etc. do not apply. <br />However regarding the design of the house, the color, etc., staff would try to meet the <br />spirit of the guidelines. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver said these guidelines apply to the extent that the property owner <br />agrees to the reasons staff is requesting certain things. <br /> <br />Ms. Michelotti felt Mr. Boock would be in the same situation as the Nelsons. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver said that was not the case. The difference is the Nelsons made an <br />application, staff applied the spirit of the overlay and they agreed to the staffs color. <br />Then they chose to change that. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 24 04/04/00 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.