My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 05:132
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2005
>
SR 05:132
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2005 1:16:41 PM
Creation date
6/2/2005 1:11:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/7/2005
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 05:132
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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
ATTACHMENT 6 <br /> EXHIBIT <br /> <br />PUD-99-01-3M~ Alameda New Communities <br />Application for a Planned Unit Development major modification to allow solid fencing <br />along the side and/or rear yard property lines of 4476 Tosca Court, 4462 Tosca Court, <br />8012 Oak Creek Drive, 8024 Oak Creek Drive, 8015 Oak Creek Drive, 8031 Oak Creek <br />Drive, 8045 Oak Creek Drive, 4526 River Rock Hill Road, and 4538 River Rock Hill Road, <br />all located in the Westridge Subdivision (formerly the Lemoine property). Zoning for the <br />property is PUD-RDR/LDR (Planned Unit Development - Rural Density Residential/Low <br />Density Residential) District. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker presented the staff report and described the layout and background of this <br />application. The fencing had been a concern with respect to open versus solid fencing; the <br />Commission recommended open fencing only for this subdivision. Staff recommends that the <br />Planning Commission recommend approval of this case to City Council, subject to the conditions <br />of approval in Exhibit B. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued with respect to the displayed plans of the fencing. <br /> <br />Chairperson Maas believed the previous Commission could have been more sensitive to the <br />impacted views into the living areas of the homes with respect to the fencing type and the need <br />for privacy. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker believed the previous Commission had the visual impacts to the foothills in mind. <br />She continued that the applicant has made a reasonable request to construct solid fencing at the <br />rear and side yards for the nine lots. She noted that there was precedent for the use of both open <br />and solid fencing on some lots to provide privacy. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br />Phil Rowe, DeNova Homes, applicant, noted that this application came to pass because of the <br />150-foot setback and an additional setback due to an earthquake fault. He noted that the close <br />proximity of the homes and the need for privacy fencing had been brought to De Nova's <br />attention. The intention was to have a rural feeling to the homes and as developers, they had <br />tried to confine the fencing to specific areas where there was a clear need for privacy. He noted <br />that eight of the 12 homes were already sold. <br /> <br />Commissioner Roberts expressed concern that even a solid fence would not block the <br />hammerhead turn and the car lights. <br /> <br /> Chairperson Maas did not have a problem with the fencing and suggested that more landscaping <br /> be planted. She did not think the latticework fencing was the best choice. <br /> <br /> THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Arkin noted that he was on the Planning Commission when this project was <br /> approved; he generally had reservations about solid fences west of Foothill. <br /> <br /> EXCERPTS: PLANN1NG COMMISSION MINUTES, April 27, 2005 Page 1 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.