My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN010296
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCMIN010296
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:45 AM
Creation date
5/13/1999 9:54:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/2/1996
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
doesn't cover the maintenance done on Ridge View Commons and other upcoming projects. The <br />City is getting all these units from Red Bear at no cost. It is hard to find a developer who will <br />come in with this kind of project. He asked why the City doesn't soften the train whistles and <br />slow the speed of the trains. He lives by the train tracks and felt the train is not going the <br />proper speed. <br /> <br /> Rosemary Wilson, 4107 Stanley Boulevard, was concerned about the setback of the units. <br />She stated the developer had made an effort to increase the setback and additional trees and <br />landscaping would be taken into consideration. The setback is still close to the back of her <br />property. She felt that even though one unit was setback twenty feet from her unit, the other <br />units remain at ten feet. Ms. Wilson thought that her privacy would be diminished by having <br />six very close neighbors and asked that the two two-story units be brought down to one-story. <br /> <br /> Gary Schwagerle, 189 West Angela Street, supported the project and complimented the <br />developer on the great job it has done. He would have liked to see units with parking below <br />them. He hoped that Council will suppert this project. <br /> <br /> Don Adams, 4133 Stanley Boulevard, stated that this is an in-ill]project on property that <br />was originally developed in the 1930's. Del Valle Manor has 36 units with two car garages and <br />there was no neighbor on either side so it could be built as the developer wanted. He felt there <br />is not enough parking in the Del Vnlle Manor area. He supported the project in general, but <br />felt he'd like to see the whole project moved to the east by 5-7 feet to keep some of the open <br />space. He felt concessions were given on the east at the expense of those on the west. The <br />whistle is the biggest problem of the train noise issue. The tracks were redone 7-8 years ago <br />and the tracks were welded into one continuous band. When a train comes by at the proper <br />speed (25 miles per hour) there are no problems with the exception of a wheel bearing squeaking <br />once in awhile. He suggested the railroad be contacted regarding the speeds of the train as it <br />comes into town. Parking could be a problem, especially for visitors. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked if there was any latitude to move the units on the one side? <br /> <br /> Mr. Madden commented that the design was meant to be more sensitive to Del Valle <br />Manor than to Del Valle Court. When the project was redesigned, he tried to mitigate the single <br />family homes and then relate the project to the high density. The units have been pushed back <br />to the point where the rear setback is at least equal to the Del Vaile Manor. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver commented that there was a lot of open space. Is there latitude to move <br /> the structure and reduce the open areas between the buildings? <br /> <br /> Mr. Goldsworthy stated that each unit has a ten foot private open space, which is a <br />requirement, then there is only four feet from the fence line to the curb and then the parking lot. <br />There is another four feet for sidew.lk requirements. He stated that they have already <br />encroached and minimized the landscaping so there might be two extra feet available but not <br />much more. <br /> <br />01/02/96 -8- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.