PC 101007 - Laserfiche WebLink

that there would not be a homeowners association and that all of the property would be in private ownership with individual lot maintenance responsibilities. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Narum regarding how the road repaving would be handled, Mr. Hirst replied that there would be a maintenance agreement and that every owner, including the Fullers, would contribute to it. Mr. Hirst noted that the geotechnical report had been peer-reviewed. He pointed out part of the road that was 22 feet wide with a 50-foot easement. They were in the process of developing guest parking on one side of the road, and the entire road would not be widened. He emphasized that there would be no restrictions for public safety vehicles accessing the property. Dr. William Yee, applicant, described the history of his ownership of the land and his plans to develop it. He noted that he was particularly interested in enhancing the safety of the project and would do whatever he could to make this a nice project for his family members and for the community. Mr. Hirst noted that they sent letters to all of the Lemoine property owners about two weeks prior and that copies of those letters had been provided to Mr. Pavan. He added that as of the start of the Planning Commission hearing, they had not heard from any resident of that development. He displayed the view from Foothill Road and described the features of the entrance and the proposed improvements. He pointed out the large tree and noted that he did not wish to remove it. He displayed the remainder of the views from various surrounding sites. He noted that Pads 1 and 2 would not be visible, although when the houses are built, the rooftops would probably be visible. He noted that some of the rooftops would be visible from the valley floor but that they would not stand out. He noted that Lot 3 would be hidden among the trees. Joseph Gorney, project architect, Gorney and Associates Architecture, noted that he had written architectural guidelines for the Silver Oaks and Austin developments. He added that this project was different because the sites would not be padded flat because of the soil conditions and the trees; each lot would step with the hills and would be sensitive to the environment. He noted that they had developed the architectural guidelines to be site-specific, similar to those for Golden Eagle Farm; the trees and grading for each site would be integral to the design. They intended to have a more balanced cut-and-fill, which would be restricted so the homes would be able to step. Acting Chairperson Blank invited members of the public to speak on this item. There were no speakers. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Acting Chairperson Blank suggested addressing each question in order. 1. Does the Planning Commission conceptually support changing the proposed project’s conformance to the Pleasanton General Plan? The Commissioners present unanimously supported the statement. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 10, 2007 Page 11 of 21