My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 05:258
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2005
>
SR 05:258
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/16/2005 12:13:13 PM
Creation date
9/15/2005 4:44:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
9/20/2005
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 05:258
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
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
<br /> The project has hip roofs and balconies. The project would be consistent with these <br /> guidelines. <br />Garaf!.es <br />. Detached garages are preferred and should be located to the rear of the site. <br />. Minimize driveway width; 10 to 12 feet is adequate. <br />Garages are not proposed, and are not required per the Downtown Design Guidelines. The <br />applicants are proposing carports. The carports for the singlejamily units on Peters <br />Avenue would be located at the rear of the site. The carports for the multijamily units <br />would be at the front of the site, due to siting constraints. The driveways along Peters <br />Avenue would be 7.5 feet wide as measured from driveway strip to driveway strip. The <br />driveway widths along St. John Street would be approximately 20 feet in width. While the 20 <br />foot wide driveway is wider than 12 feet, staff believes it is supportable, since separating <br />these double wide driveways into two driveways would mean that the driveways would be <br />closer to the intersection and potentially unsafe from a traffic perspective. <br />A member of the public has requested that the carports be changed to garages. Staff agrees <br />that garages would be more attractive; however, the Downtown Specific Plan does not <br />require garages and staff is concerned that if garages are constructed, they will be used for <br />storage and not for parking. The applicants have stated to staff that if the Planning <br />Commission/City Council prefers garages, they are willing to change the carports into <br />garages, so long as they adhere to all Uniform Building Code(UBC) requirements. The <br />City's Building and Safety Division has reviewed the proposal and has determined that the <br />carports can be changed to garages on all of the lots with the exception of the carports for <br />units C-1 and C-4. If units C-1 and C-4 had garages, they would not adhere to the UBC's <br />rear yard exiting requirements. <br />The proposed plan appears to be consistent with the intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines <br />and the project appropriately reflects the size, scale, and massing of the Downtown area and <br />other existing residential structures. <br />Building Architecture <br />The residential architectural style reflects a contemporary theme known as "American Farm" or <br />"California Monterey". Since the original project submittal, the applicants have revised the <br />designs to provide more diversity, various materials integration, and more articulation between <br />the units. The buildings will each have a specific color palate adding interest and diversity to <br />the project's streetscape. The different colors, generally blue, brown, and gray are shown in the <br />color rendering (Exhibit A). The roof material on all of the buildings is proposed as <br />"Presidential Shake" with "Shadow Gray", "Slate Gray", or "Chaparral Cedar" colors or similar <br />colors. Staff believes that the exterior colors of the buildings and roof materials are appropriate. <br />Case No. PUD-37 Planning Commission <br /> Page - 8 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.