My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 071107
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
PC 071107
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 3:30:51 PM
Creation date
10/29/2007 9:54:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/11/2007
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
b. PUD-55, Michael Carey and Steve Maestas <br /> <br /> Application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to: (1) rezone an <br />approximately 0.24-acre parcel from RM-15 (Multiple-Family Residential) <br />District and Core Area Overlay District to PUD-HDR (Planned Unit Development <br />– High Density Residential) District and Core Area Overlay District; and <br />(2) demolish two existing residential units, renovate one existing residential unit, <br />and construct four new single-family homes for a total of five residential units at <br />the property located at 225 West Angela Street. <br /> <br />Ms. Mendez summarized the staff report and described the background, scope, and layout <br />of this project. She displayed the site layout on the overhead screen and noted that staff <br />distributed a memo clarifying any confusion arising from the discussion of the proposed <br />building heights of the homes. The height was proposed to be 34½ feet to the top of the <br />roof; the Downtown Specific Plan recommended that a change to the ordinance be made <br />to limit the height in the Downtown area to 30 feet. This was currently a policy <br />recommendation, and there were other policies in the Downtown Specific Plan staff felt <br />this project complied with. By providing on-site parking, it has raised the height of the <br />structures slightly. Staff provided a second memo to correct a typo in Condition No. 18 <br />and to clarify the wording. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Narum regarding why Condition No. 39 <br />addressing automatic sprinklers included the existing home, Ms. Mendez replied that <br />sprinklers would only be required if requested by the Fire Marshall. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker noted that typically, existing homes were not required to be retrofitted <br />because of the expense. In this particular case, the home would be gutted and new <br />framing and sheetrock would be installed; the rear portion of the structure would be <br />demolished to make it smaller. Staff believed it was essentially a new structure because <br />of the extensive demolition and made that recommendation for that reason. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank would like to hear from the applicant regarding this issue. <br /> <br />Ms. Mendez distributed a color chip board to the Commission as requested by <br />Commissioner Narum. <br /> <br />Commissioner Olson noted that he had spoken to the next-door neighbor who supported <br />the project but suggested in her letter that the fence be 10 feet high along her house on the <br />west side. <br /> <br />Ms. Mendez replied that it was the Commission’s prerogative to approve a fence of <br />10 feet in height; however, the City has limited residential fencing to eight feet to avoid <br />the appearance of a walled community. She displayed the area in question and added that <br />the applicant and the neighbor wished to remove the shrub. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 2007 Page 14 of 27 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.