My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 032812
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
PC 032812
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 2:52:57 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 2:46:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/28/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
grading; however, they are asking for an exception for agricultural structures to be <br />higher than 30 feet to allow for barns and stables. <br />Second, regarding security gates, Ms. Goldade stated that there is already a significant <br />trespassing problem on the property, and they think it is really important to have a <br />security gate for the project. She noted that the regional trail mentioned by Mr. Otto is <br />as proposed in the General Plan and is basically the same alignment as what was <br />proposed in the previous project. <br />And finally, Ms. Goldade stated that they think the biological discussion should be held <br />and weighed on and not pre -judge any of the studies that are currently underway as <br />part of the CEQA process. <br />Commissioner Narum inquired if any of the ten lots will be restricted to a single -story <br />house. <br />Ms. Goldade replied that right now, they are proposing that there be a development <br />envelope to build on, so there is no proposal for that at this time. She added that it <br />would depend on what comes out of the CEQA process. <br />Commissioner Narum requested clarification that there is no restriction and that they are <br />not proposing to have a restriction for single -story on any of the lots. <br />Ms. Goldade said no. <br />Commissioner O'Connor asked Ms. Goldade to repeat what they are asking to be <br />outside of the current proposed guidelines, and how many square feet of an accessory <br />structure they are talking about. <br />Ms. Goldade replied that initially, they did not think there should be a square footage <br />limitation for the project, but if there had to be one, it would be 12,500 square feet for <br />the primary unit and 1,200 square feet for each residential accessory structure beyond <br />that, which could include a garage structure of up to ten cars or a secondary unit as <br />allowed under State law or any other type of accessory structure. <br />Commissioner O'Connor commented that a 1,200- square -foot garage would not <br />accommodate ten cars. <br />Ms. Goldade explained that it would depend on how it is laid out; for example, it could <br />be a tandem garage or a garage with a couple of doors that are laid out like a courtyard <br />system. She noted that Commissioner O'Connor might be thinking about a basement <br />garage where there are drive aisle and garage stalls on either side. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that a standard garage is typically about 200 - square <br />feet per car, unless it is a very small car; therefore, if they are proposing a ten -car <br />garage, then it would have to be more than 1,200 square feet. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 28, 2012 Page 7 of 33 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.