My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
22 ATTACHMENT 05
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2014
>
041514
>
22 ATTACHMENT 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/19/2015 3:39:19 PM
Creation date
4/4/2014 1:20:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
4/15/2014
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
22 ATTACHMENT 5
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
here. She noted that it appeared one other benefit with Alternative No. 2 was that it <br /> reduced the retaining wall because the hammerhead turn is at the same level as the <br /> home, which is an improvement to the visual impact. <br /> Mr. Kirkpatrick replied that the access road for the 500-foot elevation is identical, and <br /> the 510-foot elevation is actually a slope up from where the hammerhead is. He <br /> explained that for every foot that is dropped, the building envelope is pushed out about <br /> three to three-and-a-half feet towards the Silver Oaks homes; therefore, the building <br /> envelope will need to be pushed towards the home going down because the grading will <br /> be in the back then; the slope will be graded in the back and the flat pad will be pushed <br /> out. He stated that the downside of this is that about 12,000 cubic yards of dirt is taken <br /> out versus the 6,000 cubic yards at the other elevation where the house is farther back. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor inquired what the actual heights of all the retaining walls are. <br /> Ms. Soo replied that as proposed, the height of retaining wall on the east side or the one <br /> closest to Silver Oaks varies from four feet to nine feet because of the slope, and the <br /> wall of the opposite side which is up against the hills is about three feet to four feet high. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor inquired if this is only along the roadway. <br /> Ms. Soo replied that it is along the roadway up because the retaining wall holds the <br /> road. <br /> Ms. Stern added that the roadway stays in the same place for all the Alternatives. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor inquired if there would be a retaining wall around the back of <br /> the building pad. <br /> Ms. Stern replied that she was not certain if there would be a retaining wall at the back <br /> of the pad for Alternative No. 2. She referred the question to Mr. Kirkpatrick. <br /> Mr. Kirkpatrick replied that there is no retaining wall; the house just moves farther into <br /> the slope and extends out farther. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor inquired how many feet long of the retaining wall would be <br /> nine feet tall. He further inquired if the style of the material for that wall is just split <br /> concrete. <br /> Chair Olson stated that the applicant can address that when he comes forward to talk. <br /> Ms. Stern stated that staff will be looking at the design of that wall, and it will be <br /> approved by the Director of Community Development. She added that staff can include <br /> any direction on the design that the Commission may have. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 12, 2014 Page 7 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.