My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
22 ATTACHMENT 05
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2014
>
041514
>
22 ATTACHMENT 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/19/2015 3:39:19 PM
Creation date
4/4/2014 1:20:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
4/15/2014
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
22 ATTACHMENT 5
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
Building Height. The Specific Plan allows primary buildings in the HR District to be 30 feet in <br /> height and two stories below elevations of 540 feet. Above that elevation, buildings are limited <br /> to 25 feet in height and one story. The proposed building envelope areas for both lots would <br /> be located below an elevation of 540 feet and, therefore, future homes could be two stories <br /> and up to 30 feet in height. The applicants are proposing a stepped building pad on Lot 1 <br /> which would have a 10 foot difference between the upper building pad and the lower building <br /> pad. As such, the building would be taller when measured from the "down slope" side than <br /> measured from the "upper slope" side. <br /> Page 23 of VACSP states site development standards such as building height may vary for <br /> unusual site conditions as long as any new standards are consistent with the intent of the <br /> Specific Plan. Page 24 states minor variations in lot, building setbacks, and building height <br /> may be permitted subject to the PUD development plan approval process where necessary <br /> due to physical site conditions. Considering the hillside terrain, the proposed design guidelines <br /> allow a maximum building height of 40 feet as measured from the "down slope" side. Staff has <br /> been included a condition clarifying that this building height would apply to the Lot 1 as it has a <br /> stepped building pad. As Lot 2 would not have stepped building pads, the maximum building <br /> height would be 30 feet. Staff finds that it is reasonable and, therefore, supports the proposed <br /> height. <br /> The proposed design guidelines state that the building height would be measured from the <br /> existing grade underneath the home before construction. Staff recommends the proposed <br /> design guidelines utilize the building height measurement as stated in the VASCP, i.e. building <br /> height is measured vertically from the lowest elevation of the building to the highest elevation <br /> of the building, excluding chimneys. Staff notes that the "lowest elevation of the building" is the <br /> lowest finished grade adjacent to an exterior wall of the main house. <br /> Architecture Styles. Instead of defining specific architectural styles for the future homes, the <br /> proposed design guidelines, similar to the design guidelines for Silver Oaks Estates, provide <br /> design criteria for each building component such as roofs, windows, doors, etc. Staff finds that <br /> the proposed design guidelines are appropriate for the hillside development. <br /> Maximum Building Square Footage. The proposed design guidelines limit Lot 1 and Lot 2 <br /> to a maximum of 8,500 square feet of habitable/living space and a maximum of 10,000 square <br /> feet of total building area (including the home, garage, and all accessory structures on the <br /> subject site). This item was reviewed and discussed at the Planning Commission work <br /> session on July 24, 2013, and the Commission found it is acceptable. Staff supports it as well. <br /> Geotechnical Report <br /> As required by General Plan policies and the Specific Plan, a geotechnical investigation report <br /> was prepared for the subject site by Berlogar Stevens &Associates. The geotechnical report <br /> was peer reviewed by the City Engineer and was found acceptable. <br /> PUD-84 Planning Commission <br /> Page 16 of 23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.