My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
17
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
041613
>
17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/16/2013 4:41:37 PM
Creation date
4/10/2013 2:57:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
4/16/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
17
Document Relationships
10
(Message)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2013\040213
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2013\040213
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
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
DISCUSSION <br /> There appears to be general agreement on the issues of how a slope should be <br /> measured, what contour interval should be used, and how to address manufactured <br /> slopes. The following discussion responds to the three recommendations made by the <br /> Planning Commission on the issues of: 1) Defining the Ridgeline Setback, 2) Roads <br /> Included in Specific Plans, and 3) Predetermined Ridges. Staff and the Planning <br /> Commission have a different perspective on each of these issues. <br /> 1. Defining the Ridgeline Setback. <br /> Planning Commission Recommendation <br /> Define the Ridgeline Setback from the top of the ridge closest to the structure to <br /> the top of the structure. <br /> Staff Response <br /> Measure PP is silent as to whether the house or structure may/may not project <br /> upward into the 100-foot vertical setback from the ridgeline. Staff believes that <br /> measuring the ridgeline setback from the top of the ridge closest lo the structure to <br /> the top of the structure, as recommended by the Planning Commission, makes the <br /> proposed ordinance more restrictive than the language of Measure PP. <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Staff recommends no change to Section 18.70.070 B. of the proposed Code <br /> Chapter (Attachment #1). The proposed wording of this Section would not prohibit <br /> the City Council and the Planning Commission from exercising its design review <br /> authority through the development review processes, with visual and/or lines-of- <br /> sight analyses, to locate proposed structures, limit their maximum building height, <br /> lower their building pads, etc., to mitigate a potential impact to views of a hillside or <br /> ridgeline. <br /> If the City Council agrees with the Planning Commission that the top of the <br /> structure may not project upward into the ridgeline setback, staff suggests the City <br /> Council revise Section 18.70.070 A. of the proposed Code Chapter with the <br /> following language: <br /> A. Determining the Ridgeline Setback Line. <br /> The ridgeline setback is the continuous ground line measured 100 <br /> vertical feet below the ridgeline, and then plotted on the topographic <br /> map/contour map of the property. The vertical elevation of the <br /> ridgeline setback will vary based on the elevation of the ridgeline. The <br /> horizontal distance of the ridgeline setback from the ridgeline will vary <br /> based on the slope of the hillside. The top of a structure (except <br /> cupolas, chimneys, or similar appurtenances) on the building pad shall <br /> not extend into the closest ridgeline setback. <br /> And revise Figure 4, Slope Cross Section with the Ridgeline Setback, from the <br /> proposed Code Chapter to the figure shown on the following page: <br /> Page 5 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.