My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN011706
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
CCMIN011706
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:43 AM
Creation date
1/12/2006 4:45:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/17/2006
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN011706
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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 />Ms. McGovern referenced the 18 homes that were identified in the Housing Element and <br />the discussion Council had regarding wanting lots of 10,000 square feet. She asked if the <br />change to 10,000 square foot lots occurred after the adoption of the 1 996 General Plan? <br /> <br />Mr. lserson said the distinction was made in the Housing Element where staff based the <br />18 lots on the mid-point of the medium density residential designation of the General Plan, <br />which could allow 6,500 square-foot lots. It has been the policy of the City to encourage 10,000 <br />square-foot lots in this area. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky asked if there were any other parcels in the City where development was <br />less than what is included in the Housing Element? <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson said this was somewhat of an unusual situation. This area of town is a rural <br />property in the middle of town. It has been the direction of the City Council to endorse the <br />10,000 square-foot lot size; however, there are a number of PUDs throughout town which have <br />been approved at the lower end of the density range, less than the mid-point. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky asked if channel slide slopes were consistent with what is adjacent to the <br />Nolan Farms subdivision? <br /> <br />Mr. lserson said the slope adjacent to the Noland Farms subdivision is either 2:1 or <br />21/2:1 and is no steeper. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky recalled that a Draft Circulation Element had been prepared with several <br />iterations. He asked if this draft included the extension of Rose Avenue? <br /> <br />Mr. lserson said the Draft Circulation Element did include the extension of Rose Avenue. <br />He believed the extension of Rose Avenue could be removed after Council and the Planning <br />Commission had completed their review of the Land Use Element, and once traffic and <br />circulation model runs are conducted again. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky recalled 12 lots were fonmerly part of the Jones property and these lots <br />were subdivided. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson said that was correct. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky asked how the Jones property would connect to the Rose Avenue Estates <br />subdivision when it was developed? <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson provided a map of the area that showed the subject parcel and Calico Lane. <br />He explained how it would be extended next to the Arroyo as a frontage road with a trail that <br />would connect eventually to the A1teri property. <br /> <br />When the Jones family subdivided and put in Calico Lane, Mr. Brozosky asked why they <br />did not connect their existing house to that road as opposed to an easement to someone else's <br />property. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson believed Mr. Jones wanted to retain his historical driveway and access that <br />he had for many years. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council <br />Minutes <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />01/17/06 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.