My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 110911
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 110911
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
2/2/2012 11:25:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/9/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
presented the sight level of the windows that would appear on the new addition as well <br />as the floor level of the new addition. He indicated that it is somewhat deceiving <br />because the property steps down and the additions being built terraces the property <br />down so the second floor is actually slightly below the first floor. He stated that it <br />appears the sight lines envisioned by Mr. Weiner as shown in his pictures will be less <br />than what he had contemplated. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson stated that when he talked to Mr. Van Cleave earlier, Mr. Van <br />Cleave had demonstrated a reluctance to put up story poles. Commissioner Olson <br />indicated that he believed putting up story poles would be a courtesy to the neighbors <br />be able to show them just how the actual heights would look. He asked Mr. Van Cleave <br />what his objection to this might be. <br /> <br />Mr. Van Cleave replied that he has no real objection to putting up story poles per se. <br />He stated that the height could very easily be portrayed graphically because the new <br />construction is relative to the existing building. He noted that the lines he has put in the <br />marked-up photo show those site lines which are basically the ridge of the roof, which <br />will not be prominent. He added that these do not show on the elevations they did <br />because they needed to show the actual elevation and not the landscape and terrain <br />directly in front of it. He indicated that the east side of the existing building and the <br />additions are not really visible from the lower part of Mr. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce inquired if the colors of the home portrayed in Exhibit F, the <br />Google map and visuals provided by the applicant, are accurate. <br /> <br />Mr. Van Cleave replied that they were not. He explained that these are computer <br />printouts, which are not 100 percent accurate. He added that he had a conversation <br />with Ms. Amos and changed the color of the window frames to a brown tone. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce inquired if the stucco and roof colors are accurate. <br /> <br />Mr. Van Cleave replied that those are fairly accurate. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce further inquired if the landscaping plan portrayed on the visuals is <br />accurate. <br /> <br />Mr. Van Cleave replied said the visuals show the existing landscaping. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce inquired if they have not put in the new landscaping. <br /> <br />Mr. Van Cleave replied that they do not have that at this point. He stated that what he is <br />proposing is that this privacy type of landscaping be postponed until they know the <br />exact locations of the site lines they are trying to mitigate. <br /> <br />Chair Narum requested confirmation that the color of the window frames has been <br />changed to earth tone color, consistent with the Overlay District. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 9, 2011 Page 5 of 29 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.