My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
15 ATTACHMENT 9
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
031808
>
15 ATTACHMENT 9
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/2/2008 1:56:39 PM
Creation date
3/14/2008 4:54:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
3/18/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
15 ATTACHMENT 9
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
380
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
• <br />Is the proposed architectural style and form acceptable? <br />Is the house size acceptable? <br />Are the colors and materials acceptable? <br />Is the design of the pool house acceptable? <br />Photomontaae/Visual Analysis <br /> <br />The Specific Plan-requires that a visual analysis be created with the development plan review. <br />Photomontages of the proposed project have been provided for this workshop along with the <br />preliminary comments from the City's visual peer review consultant, Matt Brockway, of Vallier <br />Design Associates. Staff notes that the peer review consultant reviewed the photomontages for <br />the 8-lot development. Therefore, his comment letter includes discussion on the six lower lots <br />that were previously proposed, but have since been deferred by the applicants. <br />Some of the comments raised by the consultant include: a viewpoint location map was not <br />provided and, therefore, it was not possible to determine if the camera settings in the 3D model <br />matched the simulation photography or if all viewing conditions have been represented; a <br />consistent 50 mm lens should be used for all viewpoints; the existing house and detached garage <br />were not removed from the simulations (staff notes that this comment was based on the <br />applicants prior request to remove these structures); the house colors do not appear to be <br />accurately portrayed; concern that the simulations may not have removed all trees that are <br />proposed to be removed; concern that the proposed simulations may not accurately reflect the <br />proposed grading at the top of the hill; concern that the number of new trees shown in the <br />simulations may not be consistent with the landscape plan; and fully mature landscaping should <br />not be used in the simulations. <br />After receiving the comment letter from the peer review consultant, a revised landscape plan <br />was submitted to staff (and included with the Commission's June 8, 2005, packet) that the <br />applicants' representative indicates is consistent with the number of new trees shown in the <br />simulations. Staff will work with the applicants to address the peer review consultant's <br />comments and ensure that the photomontages accurately represent the proposed project. <br />Discussion Point for Photomontage/Visual Analysis <br />Does the Commission wish to see any other viewpoint locations? <br />PUD-32 Page - 9 - September 28, 2005 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.