My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 052108 Special Mtg
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
PC 052108 Special Mtg
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:37:21 PM
Creation date
11/26/2008 11:57:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/21/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 052108
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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. Camp replied that they showed landscaped entry courtyards and streetscapes, front yards by <br />the builder, and side yards to the side yard fencing. He added that they would develop typical <br />techniques for buyers to landscape their own side and rear yards, which would be offered as an <br />option if the buyer decided to do that. <br />Commissioner Fox noted that since there was no guest parking and assuming that it would be <br />striped red, she inquired what the service vehicles would do if there were no parking allowed. <br />Mr. Paulza noted that four parking stalls would be provided on Stanley Boulevard and that the <br />homes would faced the interior road rather than Stanley Boulevard. Commissioner Fox inquired <br />whether Comcast would have to park on Stanley Boulevard if it had to service the house on Lot <br />9. Mr. Paulza noted that they would be able to drive in and coordinate parking with the owners. <br />Commissioner Fox inquired whether trucks would have to use the driveways since no guest <br />parking was allowed. Mr. Paulza replied that depending on the kind of trucks, they maybe able <br />to come in, but they would generally park on Stanley Boulevard. <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor regarding whether the paving on the drive <br />would be standard asphalt, Mr. Paulza replied that the program was to have textured paving at <br />the front of the project. He added that as drivers continued through the private access drive, they <br />would show an AC paved area, and the driveway aprons would be textured, colored, and scored <br />with a design concrete. The driveways would be parking stalls, so workmen and vans coming to <br />work on specific homes would be able to park in the driveway. <br />Commissioner O'Connor asked whether there would be weight limitations for either the private <br />drive or the driveway. Mr. Paulza replied that the live loads accommodate a fire apparatus so <br />they would be able to accommodate most vehicles. <br />Commissioner O'Connor inquired whether the developers would be amenable to condition the <br />project in the Homeowners Association (HOA) documents to prohibit storage within the garage. <br />Mr. Paulza replied that they would look into that. <br />Chair Blank requested that the applicant display where the parking on Stanley Boulevard would <br />be. Mr. Paulza pointed out the four spaces on the overhead screen. Chair Blank requested <br />verification that there would be two spaces within the garage and that the driveway would be <br />wide enough to accommodate two additional vehicles. Mr. Paulza confirmed that was correct. <br />Chair Blank inquired whether they would be completely off the private road. Mr. Paulza replied <br />that was correct. He noted that the aprons were currently 20 feet deep to accommodate a car. He <br />added that they may become 18 feet deep in order to accommodate a better rear setback, which <br />would still accommodate a parked car. <br />In response to Chair Blank's request, the applicant displayed a slide showing Units 3 and 4 and <br />pointed out the main entry to the units. Chair Blank inquired whether the area between Units 3 <br />and 4 would be a j oint use area for both units. Mr. DiDonato replied that it was for Unit 3, with <br />a use easement and a solid wall; Unit 4 would get the space on the other side. Mr. Paulza noted <br />that it would maximize the private open space for each unit by utilizing five additional feet. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 7 of 26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.