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
limit the available space to install amenities such as play equipment and there could be a <br /> safety concern with falling branches. <br /> • Does the Commission have a preference for the improvements in the open space parcel? <br /> For example, should play equipment be installed? The applicant is unsure if the <br /> homeowners would have small children and would like the flexibility to install no play <br /> equipment if the majority of the homeowners do nor have small children. The applicant <br /> suggests waiting until the houses are sold to determine the amenities for the open space <br /> parcel. Since the applicant could construct the project in phases and since it could take <br /> many months to sell all of the homes, staff believes that the open space amenities need to be <br /> determined now as part of the project. <br /> Demolition of the Existing Ho use <br /> The existing single-family home built in 1908 would be demolished to accommodate the <br /> proposed development. The applicant has also indicated that he would donate the house to <br /> anyone that desired it. The home is not included in the Historic Neighborhoods and Structures <br /> table of the General Plan nor was it included in the Downtown Historic Resource List and Map <br /> that was created for the 2002 update of the Downtown Specific Plan to identify individual <br /> properties and neighborhoods tLat contain outstanding examples of heritage structures. The <br /> project site is also not located in one of the four Heritage Neighborhoods that are identified in <br /> the Downtown Design Guidelines. The structure has been determined to have no historical <br /> significance through a DPR-523 survey conducted by experts in the field of historic <br /> preservation. <br /> Discussion Points <br /> • Does the Commission support the demolition of the existing house? <br /> Parking <br /> Two garage parking spaces would be provided per unit. In addition, residential driveways <br /> would be at least 18-feet long tc accommodate parked vehicles with the garage door in a closed <br /> position. Seven guest parking spaces would be provided on site. In total, 59 parking spaces <br /> would be provided for the 13 units (resulting in 4.5 spaces per unit). For comparison purposes, <br /> the adjacent 36-unit Del Valle Manor townhome development has two garage spaces per unit, <br /> short (5 ft. long) driveways that do not accommodate parking, and 16 guest parking spaces <br /> (resulting in 2.4 spaces per unit;. <br /> An additional guest parking space could be added to the open space parcel (e.g., on the north <br /> side of the two proposed spaces). The applicant believes adding another parking space would <br /> block views of the open space parcel. <br /> PUD-82 Work Session Page 9 - February 9, 2011 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.