My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 072413
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
PC 072413
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:49:24 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 3:45:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/24/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
Commissioner Allen inquired what the habitable square footage of other homes in the <br />area are. <br />Ms. Soo replied that there are three tract homes and production homes — two built by <br />Greenbriar Communities and one by Centex Homes. She indicated that the total <br />building area for each Centex Homes tract averages 4,500 square feet to 8,900 square <br />feet; and the Greenbriar Homes are almost 5,000 square feet to 5,600 square feet. <br />Commissioner Allen inquired if staff had the sizes of the Silver Oak homes. <br />Ms. Soo replied that the homes range from 3,500 square feet to 4,700 square feet, and <br />the total building area ranges from 4,400 square feet to about 5,600 square feet. <br />Commissioner O'Connor inquired what the average lot size is. <br />Ms. Soo replied that the smaller one is 19,430 square feet, which is less than a <br />half -acre. <br />Commissioner Posson inquired which Alternative best addresses the neighbors' <br />concerns. <br />Ms. Stern replied that the neighbors would have to speak on which of those Alternatives <br />they think best addresses their concerns. She noted that all the Alternatives were <br />designed so that the road was on the other side of the development and, therefore, <br />addressed all of the concerns about privacy, headlights from cars, and other similar <br />issues. She added that Lot 2, which is currently just about the peak of the hill, was <br />brought down the hill slightly to address some of their concerns. <br />Commissioner Posson requested confirmation that staff then does not know whether or <br />not either of these Alternatives would be acceptable to those individuals. <br />Ms. Soo replied that the neighbors have received all the information, and one neighbor, <br />a resident of Pietronave Lane, came in and indicated that he definitely did not like the <br />three -lot Alternative, Option 1, and that he was not sure which option he preferred. He <br />also requested that the Commission not make a decision tonight. <br />Commissioner Posson noted that the Slope Classification Map on Exhibit B indicates <br />that there are some slopes greater than 20 percent. He inquired if there are any greater <br />than 25 percent, that is, if there is any implication with Measure PP in this area. <br />Mr. Dolan said no. <br />Chair Pearce inquired if there is any indication in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific <br />Plan (VACSP) as to the location of the road. <br />Ms. Stern replied that it just shows where the road is and where it ends. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 24, 2013 Page 7 of 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.