My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11 ATTACHMENT 04
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2011
>
090611
>
11 ATTACHMENT 04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/26/2011 4:25:48 PM
Creation date
8/26/2011 2:55:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
9/6/2011
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
11 ATTACHMENT 04
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.
/
205
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
see non-single-family homes with decreased living space and increased open <br /> space. Commissioner Pentin stated that open space could be increased by <br /> reducing the floor area ratios or by reducing density; however, the project must <br /> "pencil' for the applicant. Commissioner F'entin added that if the floor areas of <br /> the houses are decreased that the floor area reduction should be significant. <br /> Applicant's Response <br /> The applicant has not reduced the house sizes or changed the type of housing of <br /> the proposed development plan from the plan that was reviewed and discussed <br /> by the Planning Commission at the work session. <br /> • Setbacks <br /> Comments <br /> Some Commissioners wanted the setbacks along the railroad to be increased to <br /> 10 feet and, if the house sizes were reduced, to look at increasing the setbacks <br /> adjacent to De Valle Manor townhomes. <br /> Applicant's Response <br /> The applicant has not changed the proposed building setbacks from the <br /> development plan that was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the work <br /> session. <br /> • Common Open Space Area <br /> Comments <br /> The Planning Commission preferred the central location of the common open <br /> space area. The commission believed that further reducing the project density <br /> would allow the open space area to be increased in size. Guest parking should <br /> not encroach into the common open space area. The Planning Commission also <br /> discussed the pros and cons of common area maintenance by a Maintenance <br /> Association or by a Homeowners Association. The Commission also stated that <br /> play equipment for children should be provided in the open space area. <br /> Applicant's Response <br /> The proposed 13-unit development plan places the common open space area in <br /> a central location on the site. The size of the open space area has not changed <br /> from the plan that was reviewed and discussed by the Planning Commission at <br /> the work session. The applicant has agreed to a condition requiring a <br /> Homeowners Association be created to maintain the development's common <br /> open space area and other common areas and utilities. The applicant did not <br /> propose play equipment in the open space area. Staff has added a condition <br /> requiring play equipment for the open space area. The applicant does not <br /> concur with this requirement and will speak on this issue at the public hearing. <br /> Item 6.a., PUD-82 Page 6 of 22 July 13, 2011 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.