My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 032316
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
PC 032316
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2017 2:30:13 PM
Creation date
8/11/2017 2:23:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/23/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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
Beaudin: Changing the number in the table? <br />Chair Ritter: The proposed development having a maximum FAR of 40 %? <br />Schroeder: We can't live with a maximum FAR of 40 %. We have to get the 45 %, but <br />we can live with an average of 40 %. If you want to limit the houses so they can't go <br />build additional square footage on them, then we're fine with that. <br />Beaudin: I mean, here's the deal. It's interesting because playing with the numbers in <br />the table doesn't necessarily achieve what Commissioner Allen may be trying to <br />achieve. So FAR is typically used as a bulk and mass control, so allowing it to average <br />over a number of parcels would make sense if you were to say, we're okay with bigger <br />houses back there, but we want the smaller ones up front. If you had a concept like that <br />in mind, then we would probably try and break it up a little bit and go in with parcels. We <br />would go individually and say, these ones can be a maximum of this percent FAR or this <br />FAR and the ones in the back could be a little bit more. Creating an average over an <br />entire area would suggest that one house could be large, one could be small, one could <br />be large again, and that would still meet the intent of what you're trying to do, and I don't <br />know that that's what you're trying to do. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: How many of the existing lots are over the percent FAR? Do <br />we know? Are we talking 1, 2, 3? <br />Beaudin: Do you know Pam off the top of your head? <br />Hardy: If they're over .40? <br />Beaudin: Yes. <br />Hardy: Counting there are .... 8 lots. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: Do you know what the FARs are on those 8 lots? I mean are <br />they 41 % or all 45 %? <br />Hardy: If the Plan 2 with the bonus room is constructed you have a total of 3 houses <br />that would have a .45 FAR. So that's the biggest house; Plan 2 with the bonus room, 3 <br />of which would be .45. <br />Chair Ritter: 3 of 16 would be at .45? <br />Hardy: Yes, that's correct. <br />Commissioner Allen: And how many are between 40% and 44 %? <br />Hardy: I count 11. <br />Commissioner Allen: That's almost a majority. 11 + 3 are over 40% Pam? <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 23, 2016 Page 17 of 46 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.