My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
10
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2011
>
011811
>
10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2011 12:52:48 PM
Creation date
1/12/2011 12:40:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
1/18/2011
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
10
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
Two of the three concerned neighbors are to the south of the subject property and are <br /> not likely to be impacted by shadows of the proposed second story as shown by the <br /> digital renderings. The neighboring properties to the east and west, as well as portion <br /> of the street, will be shadowed by the house during various days and times. This <br /> shadow will be, however, in addition to other existing objects that currently cast a <br /> shadow to the east and west. An example of this is mature landscaping that exists <br /> along the mutual property line between the subject property and the Perry's home. <br /> Square Footage and F.A.R. of other two -story homes in the Val Vista <br /> Neighborhood <br /> During the deliberation process, a member of the Planning Commission commented <br /> that the square footage ancl F.A.R. of the fifteen two -story homes mentioned by the <br /> appellants and applicants would be helpful in the decision making process. The chart <br /> shown in Figure 5 (page 9) provides this information, a portion of which is derived from <br /> City permit records and a portion of which is derived from the Alameda County <br /> Assessor's Office. The data indicates that other two -story homes in Val Vista vary in <br /> size and F.A.R. and range between a total house size of approximately 1,926 square <br /> feet to approximately 2,664 square feet and a F.A.R. of approximately 19.47% to <br /> approximately 42.59 %. <br /> The staff report for the Planning Commission hearing shows photos and a location map <br /> of the twelve two -story homes that the appellants listed in their appeal correspondence. <br /> The applicants, during their testimony during the public hearing, indicated that three <br /> additional two -story homes are located on Bacon Court. Photos of these homes and a <br /> location map are also provided in Figure 5. <br /> First Floor Addition <br /> The neighbors have indicated that they would prefer to see an addition to the first floor <br /> instead of a new second story. The configuration of the lot and the placement of the <br /> existing home, as well as possible areas for a first floor addition are shown in Figure 6 <br /> on page 10. While the diagram shows potential locations for single story additions, a <br /> combination of a single -story and two -story addition beyond the existing building <br /> footprint would require that the second story portion of the addition be separated from <br /> the adjacent one -story homes by a minimum of 17 -feet. This requirement does not <br /> apply to the current proposal because encroachment into the existing side setbacks is <br /> not proposed. <br /> The rear setback requirement is 20 -feet; however, the Pleasanton Municipal Code <br /> allows for single -story additions to come as close as 15 -feet to the rear property line in <br /> the R -1 -6,500 zoning district as long as a single unobstructed area of open space with a <br /> minimum dimension of 15 -feet and a minimum size of 1,040 square feet is maintained in <br /> the rear /side yards. The area shaded in purple depicts the single -story area that may <br /> be added if it were constructed to the 15 -foot setback and indicates that this space <br /> accounts for approximately 260 square feet. If an addition to the first floor with a rear <br /> setback of 15 -feet were proposed, the applicant would need to demonstrate compliance <br /> with the requirement for open space. <br /> Page 8 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.