My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
22 ATTACHMENT 03
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2014
>
041514
>
22 ATTACHMENT 03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/19/2015 3:38:44 PM
Creation date
4/4/2014 1:11:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
4/15/2014
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
22 ATTACHMENT 3
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
Mr. Gevan Reeves and the Silver Oaks Estates HOA stated that the proposed road, retaining <br /> wall, and two new homes will have an unobstructed or only partially obstructed line-of-sight <br /> view into the existing homes on Silver Oaks Lane. To show the potential visual impacts of the <br /> proposed two homes may have upon adjacent properties, Gorney & Associates prepared <br /> photomontages taken from seven view points, including viewpoints from the rear yard of the <br /> existing homes on Silver Oaks Lane and from the end of the existing Silver Oaks Court. <br /> The photomontages show that the proposed retaining wall would be visible from the rear yard <br /> of the homes on Silver Oaks Lane and Silver Oaks Court. The applicants have indicated <br /> landscaping could be planted to "screen" the retaining wall. In addition, none of the existing <br /> heritage-sized trees would be removed due the proposed development. As such, they would <br /> act as a natural screening of the proposed two homes. <br /> The proposed design guidelines (page 4) require visual analysis for Lot 2. Considering its <br /> hillside location, staff recommends that visual analysis be required for both lots. <br /> Discussion Point No. 5: Should additional photomontage viewpoints be included? <br /> Discussion Point No. 6: Any other concerns the Planning Commission has about this <br /> proposal? <br /> PUBLIC COMMENT <br /> Public notices were sent to all property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject <br /> property. Other than the emails from Mr. Gevan Reeves and the letter from Silver Oaks Estate <br /> HOA, at the time this report was written, staff had not received any additional comments. <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> The VACSP embodies several objectives for Hillside Residential development. Such <br /> development should be clustered in well defined areas, while at the same time preserving <br /> natural features such as heritage trees, hilltops, creeks, and steep slopes. At the same time, <br /> the visual prominence of new development should be minimized by utilizing existing site <br /> features, and open space area should be preserved. Achieving all these objectives on this site <br /> is difficult. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached material, take <br /> public testimony, and make suggestions/comments to the applicant and staff regarding the <br /> development of the site. <br /> Page - 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.