My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 111407
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
PC 111407
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 3:32:57 PM
Creation date
1/25/2008 9:12:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/14/2007
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 111407
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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
Mr. Reznick stated that project development in the Vineyard Corridor should honor the open space <br />that is treasured by all. He did not believe this project was suitable for the site and, at 35 feet tall <br />and two stories, was too tall and had too many stories. He believed that the PUD was an effort by <br />the applicants to circumvent the Specific Plan, that the house is inappropriate for location and was <br />in violation of the Specific Plan, requiring the removal of an entire hill to the great detriment of the <br />surrounding area and property owners. He stated that the Sariches need to understand the <br />constraints and that these would be enforced. He believed that the property should be developed in <br />conformance to the Specific Plan and requested the Commission to insist on the consistency as it <br />did with his project. <br /> <br />Steve Brozosky was concerned that the packet became available to the public on a Friday afternoon <br />before a three-day weekend and that the packet did not contain the photomontages, copies of the <br />plan, current grading, IPM report, open space management/fire protection plan, landscaping, and <br />green building checklist. He believed that made it difficult for the public to get a real view of the <br />entire project. He noted that Wayne Rasmussen was one of the original architects of the Vineyard <br />Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. Mr. Brozosky added that from the community, it would be Mary <br />Roberts and himself who were extremely familiar with the Specific Plan and EIR. He noted that the <br />Specific Plan broke down the residential components into different categories and provided spots in <br />the Plan with respect to where the houses would go, the Vineyard Districts, and open space, and <br />how they all co-exist. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky did not believe that Land Use Objective No. 7 had been met with respect to <br />preserving the major ridgeline in southern plan area, limiting development of hilltop areas to homes <br />that could be substantially screened from offsite areas, and limiting hillside development to areas <br />that can physically and visually accommodate it without disrupting the natural character of the site. <br />He did not believe that the plan met the criteria of Land Use Objective No. 8 to “ensure that future <br />development of the hilly areas located south of Vineyard Avenue is designed to emphasize the rural <br />character through a careful siting of buildings, and minimal disruption to the physical terrain, and <br />sensitive architectural and landscape treatments.” With regard to the physical planning concept, the <br />Specific Plan provides that residential development in Subarea 3 is to be sited to preserve the <br />significant natural features, major ridgelines, hilltop areas, woodland and riparian areas, with cluster <br />of homes reflecting the rural character and natural features of the hilly terrain. He noted that the <br />proposed house is not rural in character and does not complement what is already existing in the <br />area. He added that the Rural Density District design guidelines state that house designs should be <br />limited to architectural styles and forms adjusted to conform to the natural character of site, <br />emphasize blending of building into natural surroundings, and limiting primary buildings on <br />existing elevations exceeding 540 feet to 25 feet in height and one story. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky agreed that this was a beautiful home but believed that it was more of a <br />15,000-square-foot palace and did not have rural character and was not appropriate as a hillside <br />residential home. He noted that the applicant’s earlier statement indicated that an estate home <br />cannot fit on the lower portion is true because an estate home should not be built in the area ad <br />there is no mention of estate homes in the design guidelines. He noted that page 19 of the <br />Specific Plan lays out the different types of residential areas, including estate homes on the <br />66 acres of vineyards, not on the hillsides. He added that page 31 of the Specific Plan prohibits <br />entries exceeding 1½ stories, and the entryway of the proposed home is more than 1½ stories. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 14, 2007 Page 25 of 34 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.