My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 06:245
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2006
>
SR 06:245
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/3/2006 12:28:34 PM
Creation date
11/3/2006 12:20:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
11/7/2006
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 06:245
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
265
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 />4. There are 3 types of existing deciduous and 3 types of existing non-deciduous mature trees in the <br />rear yard, thus minimizing the visual impact of the addition; <br />5. The roof lines of the addition vary, with an average height of 21-feet, thus breaking up the mass <br />of the addition; <br />6. The applicants agreed to install transom bedroom windows facing the rear, thus minimizing <br />privacy impacts; <br />7. The applicants' addition is setback 25-feet from the rear property line, which is 5-feet more than <br />required per the Pleasanton Municipal Code; <br />8. There are no view easements benefiting the adjacent neighbors; <br />9. The applicants agreed to plant additional trees to further reduce visual impacts, if so desired; and <br />10. The applicants are not requesting any variances to any of the Pleasanton Municipal Codes. <br /> <br />Prior to and since the Zoning Administrator hearings, staff has worked with both the applicants, <br />appellants, and neighbors to discern if there are mitigations both parties may be willing to accept to <br />allow the project to move forward without additional public hearings; however, this mediation process <br />has been unsuccessful. Therefore, the application is now before the Planning Commission for review <br />and consideration. <br /> <br />SITE AND NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION <br /> <br />Site Description <br /> <br />The subject property is a residential interior lot that measures approximately 7,815 square-feet in area. <br />The majority of the lot is flat with a relatively steep 19-foot slope at the rear of the property. The subject <br />property is developed with a 1,542 square-foot single-story residence with an attached two-car garage. <br />The pad elevation is approximately 12-feet below the pad elevations of the homes located directly to the <br />rear of this site. The concerned neighbors' and appellants' homes are to the rear and are single-story <br />residences. The home located to the west, 771 Mirador Court, is a two-story residence and the home <br />located to the east, 787 Mirador Court, is a single-story residence. Staff would like to note, as a point of <br />reference, that the appellants' home is located directly behind the subject property at 790 East Angela. <br /> <br />Neil!:hborhood Description <br /> <br />The existing neighborhood is comprised of both single and two-story homes that vary in architectural <br />style and massing. The existing house next door to the applicants' house, 771 Mirador Court, is two- <br />stories and there are two other two-story houses located on the court, 786 and 795 Mirador Court. The <br />Neighborhood Aerial of Second Story Homes (please see Exhibit K) illustrates the number of single and <br />two-story homes throughout the neighborhood. The neighborhood shown on the Neighborhood Aerial <br />of Second Story Homes has a "bowl" topography effect. Mirador Drive has a gradual downward slope <br />from Bernal A venue to Bonita A venue then an upward slope towards Kottinger Drive. East Angela <br />Street has a slight downward slope from Bernal Avenue then upward towards Lomitas Drive. The <br />residences located on Abbie Street, Bonde Court, East Angela, and Mirador Court are terraced on a <br />downward slope, Abbie Street being the highest and Neal Place being one of the lowest. <br /> <br />PAP-93, AppealofPADR-1472 <br /> <br />Planning Commission <br /> <br />Page 4 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.