My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
16 ATTACHMENT 08
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
020508
>
16 ATTACHMENT 08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/30/2008 3:08:04 PM
Creation date
1/30/2008 2:54:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
2/5/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
16 ATTACHMENT 08
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
densities which generally exceed the General Plan range midpoints in order to enhance the <br />opportunities for affordable housing, unique housing types, and economic growth in the <br />Downtown." <br />Direction Needed: <br />• Is the proposed density appropriate for the site? <br />• Are the units consistent with the downtown area? <br />Site Layout <br />The development proposal consists of 5 individual parcels with a potential second dwelling unit <br />above the new garage. Staff notes that because second dwelling units are mandated by the State, <br />it would not count towards the General Plan Housing cap. Since the initial preliminary phase <br />last August, there have been several site design alternatives that have consisted of attached and <br />detached units ranging in size. The applicant has provided those site design alternatives for the <br />Planning Commissions review. Each design has the units arranged in an "L" shape on the <br />property to eliminate a cluster design by keeping the units tucked on the back of the property <br />and in keeping with the other surrounding residential buildings. <br />As illustrated in the chart above, each one is similar, however varies in size, location, and site <br />improvements. Due to the width of the driveway, proposed at 18 and 16-feet, it will be a private <br />drive. The Fire Department has reviewed the two alternative widths and is supportive of it being <br />as low as 16-feet so long has an additional fire hydrant is added. <br />Direction Needed: <br />• Given the proposed setbacks, lot sizes and location of the site, is it appropriate to have <br />detached or attached units? <br />• Is the FAR appropriate and compatible with the surrounding area? <br />• Are the units appropriate in size? <br />• Is the common open space appropriate for attached units? <br />• Given the location of the second dwelling unit, would it be appropriate to have atwo-car <br />garage verses tandem driveway parking? <br />Architectural Design <br />Although it is not reflected in the elevation drawings in Exhibit A, the proposed design scheme <br />would consist of varied wall articulations and material selections. The material pallet for each <br />of the units contains horizontal hardi-board siding and painted stucco. There would be <br />alternative color and material schemes proposed to allow for diversity. <br />The proposed buildings are approximately 31-feet tall when measured from finished grade to the <br />roof ridge. The units have a garage in the lower level and two floors of living above. Each unit <br />has a covered front porch with steps providing direct access to the living area. The attached <br />PUD-64/First Street LLC Planning Commission <br />Page S of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.