My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 042810
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
PC 042810
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
4/19/2011 3:20:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/28/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
Commissioner O’Connor inquired whether the 8,500-square-foot maximum was all <br />within the building envelope. <br />Mr. Pavan replied that it is very general, stating that the maximum size is 8,500 square <br />feet, exclusive of 700 square feet of garage area, whichever is less, but does not refer <br />to its being exclusive to the building envelope. <br />Commissioner O’Connor inquired why it would be called a building envelope if <br />structures can be built outside the building envelope. <br />Mr. Pavan stated that at the time the Commission reviewed this matter, the applicant <br />had requested consideration to allow very limited non-habitable accessory structures for <br />a shed or a barn outside of the building envelope with a Conditional Use Permit. He <br />added that habitable structures such as pool houses would have to be located within the <br />building envelope. <br />Commissioner O’Connor indicated that he was amenable to adding this clarification to <br />the Conditions of Approval. <br />Ms. Stern noted that Condition 32 states that non-habitable accessory structures are <br />allowed in the open space areas outside of the building envelope. <br />Commissioner Pentin stated that he remembers from the Minutes that there was <br />discussion that a three-sided and open structure would be a different kind of building <br />and would not be included in the 8,500-square-foot maximum. <br />Mr. Pavan confirmed that was correct. <br />Commissioner Narum referred to a recent Commission discussion on Serenity Terrace <br />regarding what constitutes a custom home. She indicated that she was looking for a <br />statement that clarifies or includes the word “custom” or that a builder could buy a lot, <br />build a house on it, and either live in it or sell it to someone as a spec house.. <br />Commissioner Pentin noted that there is a statement on page 3 that states that the <br />second phase will include the custom homes massed developed by a single applicant or <br />constructed lot by lot. He indicated that he had made a notation that this was similar to <br />the Serenity issue where neighbors in the next-door development may complain of <br />dropping the square footage from 8,500 square feet to 2,800 square feet, which would <br />be considered a custom home. He inquired if this would be an issue. <br />Mr. Pavan said no. He explained that the Serenity Terrace project deals flat pad lots, <br />whereas there are no flat areas on any of the lots in this project. He added that the <br />height of the buildings would be tied to the form to the topography, which will preclude <br />someone from buying a design from somewhere else and placing it on the property. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 28, 2010 Page 6 of 15 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.