My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN090595
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCMIN090595
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:18 AM
Creation date
5/20/1999 11:33:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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
Ms. Michelotti asked if the floor area ratio is included, or if the FAR would go up. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that it is part of the floor area ratio that is already shown. It will not <br />go over what is already allowed if the room is built. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked if this application was to accommodate a secondary unit? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that whether it was a bonus room or secondary unit, it could be built <br />within the existing floor area ratio. It is an accommodation for future homeowners and allows <br />them to build an accessory structure without having to come back and ask for a PUD <br />modification or variance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked why this applies only to homes that the builder puts in and not to custom <br />homes? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that the homeowners adjoining this property have seen the design and <br />are satisfied with the design and setbacks. If a larger floor ratio were allowed for a custom <br />house, the extra square footage would be used in the main house instead of having an accessory <br />structure. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked if this could be conditioned so that custom homes would not be able to <br />take advantage of the floor area ratio? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift could only suggest two categories for structures: one category for the main <br />structure and 5 % for additional structures. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico was concerned that bigger houses are being allowed granny units, and this will <br />put greater pressure on street parking. He felt that a sidewalk needed to be installed on both <br />sides of the street, not one side only. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver opened the public hearing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tom Mershel, New Cities Development Group, concurred with the staff <br />recommendations and believed the ability to let future home owners have an easier time building <br />an accessory structure made good sense. The homes are currently designed to comply with the <br />FAR requirements for a granny unit. This modification will make it easier for homeowners to <br />build a pool cabana or tool shed that was not in the initial design, and would spare them from <br />going through the PUD modification process. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti clarified that the FARs of the houses had been established and this is only <br />to accommodate accessory structures on these specific lots. <br /> <br />09/05/95 -12- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.