My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 06:155
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2006
>
SR 06:155
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/3/2007 2:58:15 PM
Creation date
6/2/2006 10:32:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/6/2006
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 06:155
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
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 />Staff recommends Condition No. 33 be revised as follows: <br /> <br />33. All construction activitics shall bc limited to the hours of <br />8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday Friday. In <br />addition, no construction shall bc allowed on Fcdcral Holidays. <br />The Planning Dircctor may allow earlier "start-timcs" tor spccific <br />construction activitics (c.g., concretc-foundation/tloor-pouring), if <br />it can bc dcmonstrated to the satisfaction ofthc Planning Director <br />that thc construction and construction traffic noise will not affect <br />nearby residents. All construction equipmcnt must meet <br />Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) noisc standards and shall be <br />cquipped with muffling dcviccs. <br /> <br />Each of thcse homes should have a public hearing bctore the Planning <br />Commission. I understand how frustrating that might bc to thc client and the developcr, <br />but thc cnvironmental sensitivity of thc sites as well as the off sitc views need to be <br />considercd. Dcsign review boards in other arcas of the City haven't always <br />accommodatcd neighbors by allowing a hearing. <br /> <br />Staff recommends Condition No. 33 be revised as follows: <br /> <br />5. Future homcs on thc subject property shall bc subject to design revicw approval <br />by the Zoning j\dministrator Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Two Stories: I agree with Stcve that the 20%, 27' rcquircments should bc <br />considered casc by case. I think this can bc interpreted as tlexibility within the VCSP. <br />Two feet is hardly a major addition. Perhaps, Lots I and 2 should bc dcsigncd <br />accordingly rathcr than the 30' allowcd in the VCSP. This would reduce their visibility <br />and massing from the trail. It was my understanding that the house on Lot 3 was to bc <br />single story. <br /> <br />Staff proposes to add the following language as a new condition: <br /> <br />Recommended language (Brozosky): "Although the Specific Plan limits <br />building heights on existing elevations exceeding 540 feet for 25 feet in <br />height and one story, building heights may be allowed to exceed 25 feet, <br />but no greater than 27 feet and GF two-story on a case-by-case basis if the <br />finding can be made that the additional height will not create an additional <br />visual impact to offsite locations and adjacent neighbors over a structure <br />25 feet or less. <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.