My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 011007
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
PC 011007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 3:28:53 PM
Creation date
8/17/2007 10:04:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/10/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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 Pearce noted that in the original staff report, the staff recommendations <br />would make the house on Lot 1 appear to be 25 feet high; the addendum seemed to state <br />that the height would also be 25 feet high. She inquired whether it would appear to be <br />the same height from the neighbor’s point of view. Ms. Giffin confirmed that it was <br />approximately the same; the first report showed the house to be approximately 23.5 feet <br />high, and the second report showed it to be exactly 25 feet high. <br /> <br />Chairperson Fox requested staff’s comments regarding the materials and straight nature <br />of the driveway in addition to the darkening of the house and regarding reducing the <br />visibility of the driveway. Ms. Giffin noted that the driveway was wider because it <br />would also be used by the Fire Department. Normally, staff would request a 10- to <br />12-foot wide driveway, but the Fire Department requires at least 16 feet, with 20 feet of <br />clearance on either side. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether the garage for the second <br />house could be reoriented by 90 degree from its lengthwise placement and still meet <br />turnaround requirements, Ms. Giffin replied that they would have to be able to back out <br />of the driveway safely, which appeared to be feasible. She added that a 25-foot backup <br />area would be required. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox whether the Vineyard Avenue Corridor <br />Specific Plan required that homes at higher elevations to be custom or semi-custom, <br />Ms. Giffin replied that there were special rules above 475-foot elevation, mostly <br />addressing the screening of the homes. There was no special requirement for changing <br />the design of the homes. She noted that because this was a discretionary review, the <br />Commission could make that request. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the apparent lack of trees on the <br />right-hand side of the second house in the middle, Ms. Giffin replied that staff <br />recommended that five oaks be planted. Overall, staff recommended that ten more trees <br />be planted on each lot. <br /> <br />Chairperson Fox disclosed that she visited the property and met with the applicant <br />approximately three weeks ago. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank disclosed that he visited the property on an informal basis <br />approximately one year ago and that there was no discussion of this project at that time. <br /> <br />Commissioner O’Connor disclosed that he visited the property several weeks ago with <br />the applicant. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br />Michael Aminian, applicant, described the background of this project and noted that he <br />had no objection to the City’s recommendations regarding the color. He had met with <br />several concerned neighbors to answer their questions regarding Lot 1; he increased the <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 2007 Page 4 of 27 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.