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
Photosimulation. The Commission felt that the photosimumlations prepared by the project <br /> architect were good. One Commissioner thought additional viewpoints may be helpful; but <br /> was not specific in terms of the locations of additional viewpoints. Another Commissioner <br /> wished to see a couple of viewpoints taken from the rear yard of the homes on Silver Oaks if <br /> the upper building pad is lowered. <br /> Public Comments at Workshop. Gevan Reeves, a resident on Silver Oaks Lane, spoke on <br /> behalf of the homeowners on Silver Oaks Lane and the Silver Oaks Homeowners Association. <br /> Mr. Reeves referenced a letter that he sent to the Planning Commission and pointed out that <br /> one of the proposed homes would be located outside the development area as shown on the <br /> VACSP land use map. Mr. Reeves commented that the designated development area in the <br /> VACSP is precise, not general or conceptual. Mr. Reeves questioned the accuracy of the <br /> photosimulations and expressed concerns about the visual impact of the homes. <br /> Colin Proudfoot, a resident on the adjoining lot to the west of the subject site, commented that <br /> the proposal is better than the alternatives as the alternatives would destroy the heritage trees. <br /> He noted his objection to any site layout that would have the road run directly along his <br /> property line. Mr. Proudfoot further objected to having homes located within 30 feet of his <br /> property in order to pacify the residents on Silver Oaks Lane. Mr. Proudfoot believed that <br /> there should be a solution that would lower the heights of the building pads without major <br /> grading or taking out any of the trees, and that would meet everyone's concerns. <br /> Terry Kingsfather, a resident on Silver Oaks Lane, stated that he did not have anything to add <br /> to the comments that have been made. <br /> DISCUSSION <br /> Uses <br /> The proposed uses for the Hillside Residential and Open Space areas would follow the uses <br /> listed in the PUD-5 approval. No changes are proposed. Please see Condition No. 8 for <br /> permitted and conditionally permitted uses. <br /> Site Plan <br /> Access Road. A 16-foot wide private roadway is proposed at the end of the existing Silver <br /> Oaks Court. This private roadway would then continue southerly and meander between the <br /> tree driplines providing access to both lots. This private roadway would terminate on Lot 2 with <br /> a hammerhead design as it would also serve as an emergency vehicle access road. The <br /> elevation of the road starts at 430 feet and ends at 500 feet at the hammerhead. <br /> The VACSP Land Use Plan denoted that the street to the proposed site would be a public <br /> street. The applicants propose a private road, which is designed per the requirements <br /> specified in the specific plan for private hillside streets. If it were designed as a public street, it <br /> would need to be wider. In order to preserve trees and minimize grading, staff recommended <br /> PUD-84 Planning Commission <br /> Page 7 of 23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.