My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 06:247
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2006
>
SR 06:247
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/12/2006 2:58:00 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:54:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
10/17/2006
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 06:247
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
161
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 />Ms. Decker recounted the neighbors' issues being that the project is too big, too tall, <br />massing too great, loss of trees and impact to neighbors. Ms. Decker mentioned her <br />surprise that previous communication regarding this project by the applicant with the <br />neighbors had not been done. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker stated that the FARis 40% and the City has been willing to exceed the <br />allowance up to 45%, but she wanted to be clear that the City does not provide that as a <br />right, but always on a case by case basis. She mentioned that with this site the City is <br />willing to look at a FAR up to 45%, but the front addition even exceeds the 45%. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker asked if there would be a willingness by the applicant to sit down with the <br />neighbors and see what can be determined. She mentioned using story poles to help <br />make a determination. <br /> <br />Mr. Boyce answered that he would be open to meeting with the neighbors. <br /> <br />Mr. Boyce mentioned that in the downtown area there are many high and low houses. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker stated that it is very difficult with an addition of this size to picture what it <br />would look like. She mentioned that possibly pictures or drawings could help to show <br />the actual bulk and massing. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker continued the hearing. She asked that all the people here today come back to <br />discuss this project and work out possible solutions. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker stated that an arborist would need to be consulted if this project is approved. <br /> <br />Mr. Boyce stated he has talked with Michael Fulford regarding a tree in the rear yard that <br />would need to be removed. All other trees are from neighboring yards. <br /> <br />Mr. Moore asked ifhe was missing another design requirement as far as the massing. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker answered that the neighbors think the structure seems to be too tall and that <br />even though it may meet the height requirement per code; it may not meet the character <br />test or have an impact to the neighbors. <br /> <br />Mr. Moore asked if it is too big because ofthe 60% FAR or the massing. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker replied that it sounds like it is the massing, but that question needs to be <br />answered. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker stated that in this case the attic space in the garage has a full height storage <br />area above it. The height of the accessory structure and the amount of area within the <br />second floor becomes countable to the FAR. <br /> <br />Minutes: PV-I3IIPADR-1338 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />September 15, 2005 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.