My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
18
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
060308
>
18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2008 11:36:05 AM
Creation date
5/29/2008 11:36:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/3/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
18 <br />THE CITY OF <br />-.~ I m m .u ,n~ <br />L~E~S~4NTONo CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT <br />June 3, 2008 <br />Community Development Department <br />TITLE: PUD-73, STEVE MAESTAS AND MIKE CAREY -CONSIDER AN <br />APPLICATION FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) <br />REZONING OF AN APPROXIMATELY .22-ACRE PARCEL FROM THE <br />RM-4,000 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT TO THE <br />PUD-HDR (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - HIGH DENSITY <br />RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL TO <br />ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE EXISTING <br />RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT <br />204 KOTTINGER DRIVE. <br />PROPERTY OWNERS: Steve Maestas and Mike Carey <br />GENERAL PLAN: High Density Residential -Greater than 8 dwelling units per <br />gross acre <br />ZONING: RM-4,000 <br />SUMMARY <br />The project would facilitate the subdivision of an existing parcel to allow the two existing <br />homes to be located on separate legal lots. Staff is recommending approval subject to <br />the site development standards for height, and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) consistent with <br />those applicable to the R-1-6,500 district with minor modifications to the setback <br />requirements as provided in Exhibit B. Any future modification to the existing structures <br />would be subject to these restrictions and also would be subject to the Planning Design <br />Review process. The Planning Commission recommends a more conservative <br />approach: limiting the height of future development to that of the existing structures, a <br />more restrictive FAR, and a requirement that any additions to or replacement of the <br />homes automatically require Planning Commission review. The applicants object to the <br />Planning Commission's recommendation with regard to the limited FAR and the height <br />restrictions. The neighboring property owners have concerns regarding two-story homes <br />being built and parking issues. See the Planning Commission section of this report for <br />additional information. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION <br />By a vote of 4 to 1, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project, <br />subject to the modified conditions of approval shown in Attachment 2. See the Planning <br />Commission section of this report for additional information. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.