My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 030916
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
PC 030916
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2017 2:28:45 PM
Creation date
8/11/2017 2:21:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/9/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
I would like to see Lot 3's garage be closer to 700 square feet and the square footage of <br />the home being closer to about 4,000 square feet and the height being 30 feet which is <br />code and not over code at 32 feet. At a minimum, it ought to be 30 feet and not 32 feet <br />in thinking about compatibility. That's how I feel about that. <br />Aside from that I think the architecture's beautiful and I can support the project. That's <br />the part that I'm just not 100% comfortable with, and I don't know if anyone can help me <br />through that. <br />Balch: I was going to mention that, I think Commissioner Allen misunderstood. The <br />comment I believe we're referring to is the 5 unit project across the street going to the <br />3 unit project, I think the overall comment was that we said it could be larger homes and <br />not smaller homes because of the way they were going to reduce their size because <br />we're going from 2 to 1 and there were a lot of factors there. <br />Nagler: So if they do what we're asking them to do across the street which they haven't <br />committed to doing, we don't know yet. <br />Allen: You know, that's a really good point. So I do want to mention one other thing as I <br />think about those to that point, the project across the street, and staff help me here, but <br />I think we had about 3 to 3'Y2 acres of flat land that essentially was going to be <br />developed. Was that about right? So each home would have had about one acre? <br />Weinstein: A little over four acres. <br />Allen: A little over four, so each home would have had about one acre, I mean spread <br />out over this flat land are, right? Versus this project, we really only have 1.4 or 1.5 acres <br />of flat land within this three acre property so in fact these homes are actually only going <br />to be on half of an acre each. <br />O'Connor: This means the houses theoretically could be bigger. <br />Balch: But if I may, this is where I was going earlier with my comment to staff about <br />zoning, right? Across the street is zoned Agricultural, so I was actually trying to say why <br />are we getting to build three here for example versus five versus three on the other <br />side? The zoning is what it is, which we all know where we stood from the last <br />application, but.... <br />Allen: Okay, well thank you for helping me think through that. <br />Weinstein: Commissioner Allen I just want to clarify the FAR calculations because we're <br />just getting out of the FAR discussion. We did miscalculate it. The FAR for Lot 3 in <br />Table 1 should actually not be 20% but 23 %. We inadvertently left out the amount of <br />garage space beyond 600 feet when we were making the calculations. Apologies for <br />that. <br />Nagler: Just to be clear for future reference, if the garage is 600 feet or smaller it is not <br />part of the FAR calculation, right? <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 9, 2016 Page 16 of 25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.