My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
10 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
110408
>
10 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/29/2008 11:40:04 AM
Creation date
10/29/2008 11:34:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
11/4/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
10 ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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
-~ ATTACHMENT 5 <br />~. (~,~ <br />PUD-72. Jerome and Laura Ranev <br />Application for Planned Unit Development rezoning of two parcels totaling <br />approximately .51 acres from the RM-1,500 (Multiple-Family Residential) District <br />to the PUD-HDR (Planned Unit Development -High Density Residential) District <br />and development plan approval to construct three new residences at 4715 and <br />4693 Augustine Street. <br />Rosalind Rondash presented the staff report and described the background, scope, key <br />components, and layout of the project. She noted that staff had presented a memo to <br />the Commission regarding a new condition that would address cost analysis for <br />restoration versus new construction in order to maintain the historical ties of the existing <br />structure. <br />Commissioner Narum noted that she had read the staff report and that with respect to <br />noise, her interpretation was that all of the items listed needed to be done in order to <br />achieve the required decibel ratings the General Plan specifies. She requested <br />clarification regarding whether the City is doing what it needs to in order for noise to be <br />within the required guidelines. <br />Chair Blank noted that he had a difficult time finding the noise conditions, and <br />Commissioner Narum identified it as Condition No. 21. Chair Blank noted that the <br />condition did not appear to be the standard condition of approval that is used and would <br />like it changed to reflect that. <br />Ms. Decker stated that noise analyses generally have recommendations as described. <br />She added that windows need an STC rate upwards of 40+ ratings, which would result <br />in a very wide-framed window which is unattractive and does not meet the City's design <br />guidelines. She explained that noise mitigation can also be attained through other <br />methods such as wall construction, increased insulation, sound attenuation, etc. She <br />noted that the noise study is part of Exhibit A under Condition No. 1. She added that <br />staff wanted flexibility so as not to have huge, wide windows that prohibit recessed <br />window entries. <br />Commissioner Narum inquired how staff would know which combination will achieve the <br />decibel level if it is different than what is being recommended. Chair Blank inquired why <br />a noise study would be needed if its recommendations would not necessarily be <br />followed. <br />Ms. Decker replied that staff refers back to the noise consultant and verifies conditions <br />to satisfy the requirement. <br />Chair Blank inquired if the condition of approval could be subject to the <br />recommendations of the noise consultant. Ms. Decker recommended that the condition <br />be based on staffs consultation with the noise analyst and subject to the review and <br />aooroval of the Director of Planning and Community Development: Chair Blank <br />the Director's <br />include the noise analysts approval. <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 23, 2008 Page 1 of 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.