My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 17968
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
RES 17968
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2017 1:54:27 PM
Creation date
10/6/2017 1:54:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
10/3/2017
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
DOCUMENT NO
17968
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
WHEREAS, the City Council held a regular public hearing on October 3, 2017, at <br /> which time David and Sue Robles, as the appellant/applicant, and other members of the <br /> public were offered an opportunity to present evidence regarding the appeal. <br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE <br /> CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER <br /> THE FOLLOWING: <br /> SECTION 1. The appeal of the Planning Commission's decision is denied <br /> because the City Council finds that: <br /> 1. The preservation of the natural beauty of the city and the Project site's <br /> relationship to it would be adversely affected as no detailed landscape plan <br /> was provided that would establish a planting palette that would be well- <br /> integrated with the proposed architecture with the potential to be successfully <br /> maintained in a Mediterranean climate. <br /> 2. The appropriate relationship of the proposed building to its site, including <br /> transition with streetscape, public views of the buildings, and scale of the <br /> buildings within its site and adjoining buildings is not demonstrated by the <br /> project as: (a) the massing is incompatible with other homes in the <br /> neighborhood because this would be largest home on the street and its size is <br /> incongruous with other homes in the neighborhood (the proposed floor area <br /> ratio [FAR] would be 38.2%, and other homes on Yellowstone Court range <br /> from 20.7% to 36.5% FAR); and (b) increasing the number of bedrooms <br /> within the home would likely result in the need for additional parking on a site <br /> that does not have the capacity to accommodate it, adversely affecting the <br /> availability of parking on Yellowstone Court. <br /> 3 The appropriate relationship of the proposed building and its site to adjoining <br /> areas, including compatibility of architectural styles, harmony in adjoining <br /> buildings, attractive landscape transitions, and consistency with neighborhood <br /> character is not demonstrated by the Project as the architectural styling is not <br /> carried around four sides of the building, and architectural details (e.g., <br /> window trim, cladding) are not consistent with the generally high-quality of <br /> detailing in the neighborhood. Furthermore, this lack of detailing exacerbates <br /> the perception of building mass from public viewpoints along Yellowstone <br /> Court. <br /> 4. The preservation of views enjoyed by residents, workers within the City, and <br /> passerby through the community would be impacted as more appropriate <br /> landscaping would be necessary to enhance the proposed design and break <br /> up massing from the street and surrounding homes. <br /> 7. The architectural style, as a function of its quality of design and relationship to <br /> its surroundings, and the relationship of building components to one another <br /> and the building's colors and materials would be incompatible with the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.