SR 05:069A - Laserfiche WebLink

believe that the homes on this development should be limited to a one story building height to maintain the rural appearance of the North Sycamore Specific Plan area. Linda Walton (5862 San Juan Way) - Ms. Walton expressed her support for retaining the sidewalk between San Carlos Way and Sycamore Terrace. Michael and Katherine Ferreira (5821 San Carlos Way) - Although not stated in their let- ter, the Ferreiras expressed their preference to staff that the sidewalk be deleted from the project. They expressed concerns pertaining to the maximum height and orientation of the house on Parcel Four, that story poles be installed on Parcel Four indicating the planned height of this house, that the maximum height of accessory structures on Parcel Four be limited to 10-feet, that the existing fencing separating their property from Parcel Four be maintained, and design details of the public sidewalk between San Carlos Way and Sycamore Terrace. Steven Liu and Jenny Wong (5816 San Carlos Way) - Mr. Liu and Ms. Wong oppose the public sidewalk because it does not serve any purpose, raises safety issues pertaining to child safety and escape routes for burglars, raises issues pertaining to privacy and liabil- ity, and would depress property values. Shareef Mahdavi (5708 Hidden Creek Court) - Mr. Mahdavi expressed his support for retaining the sidewalk between San Carlos Way and Sycamore Terrace. 10. Tom and Mary Greene (386 Sycamore Road) - The Greenes expressed several concerns regarding retaining walls, concrete "V"-ditches, and the fencing placed along the west- erly project boundary line adjoining their property, limiting the homes on these parcels to a one-story maximum height, requiring a minimum 28-foot building setback from the westerly project boundary line adjoining their property, and requiring a farm animal dis- closure recorded of the proposed lots. The Greenes also questioned the story pole erected on the northerly portion of the site and the lack of a stop sign on Sycamore Road at Sycamore Creek Way. Staff has not received any additional verbal or written comments pertaining to the proposed pro- ject as of the time the staff report was written. VI. PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS The Pleasanton Municipal Code sets forth the purposes of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District and the considerations to be addressed in reviewing a PUD development plan proposal. The Planning Commission must make the following findings that the proposed PUD develop- ment plan conforms to the purposes of the PUD District, before making its recommendation. Item 6. a., PUD-42 and PSP-08 Page 14 of 18 February 9, 2005