My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
3A Public Hearing 2007 0507
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2007
>
Packet 2007 0507
>
3A Public Hearing 2007 0507
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/16/2007 10:49:00 AM
Creation date
5/4/2007 9:21:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Staff Report
Document Date (6)
5/7/2007
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2007 0507
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2007\Packet 2007 0507
MO 2007-058
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Minute Orders\2007
Reso 2007-060
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Resolutions\2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
105
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
<br />A high level of architectural detail is also provided for the rear row of five townhouse units and <br />the two attached townhomes on Herma Court. The elevations facing the interior driveway have <br />the same windows, detailing, trim, etc., as the front elevation along MacArthur Boulevard, <br />exhibiting four-sided architecture. The garages have varied window and wood panel styling that <br />break up the long row of garage doors in the interior of the site. <br /> <br />The proposal includes a prominent porch element for the homes, raising the building by two feet <br />to include a total of four steps to the front entries. The proposed five-foot tall wood fence <br />bordering the porch provides a level of privacy. A large overhang/entry element is provided for <br />every two units, creating a prominent Craftsman statement with heavy timbered gables. <br /> <br />With the average building height for the townhomes at 34 feet, six inches the proposed building <br />height is well below the 50-foot height maximum in the RM-2000 District (Zoning Code Section <br />2-536). The third story of all units is stepped back five feet at the front gable bays and eight feet <br />from the main portion of the third story to front building plane, providing depth in the front <br />articulation and reducing the overall mass of the structure with its partial third floor. Per Planning <br />Commission comments at the worksession, the roof lines have also been staggered in height <br />across the row of townhomes to provide greater visual variety. <br /> <br />Parking <br /> <br />As described above in the discussion for the need for the Planned Development, the off-street <br />parking supply for the overall project is slightly less than the 2.5 spaces per unit required per the <br />Zoning Code. In addition, seven of the units contain tandem, two-car garages, which is not <br />outright allowed in the CC zoning district. <br /> <br />Staff believes that the proposed residential development, with one car garages limited to the <br />inclusionary housing units and two-car tandem garages allocated to the smaller C 1 units, the <br />parking for the site is adequate. The site is located on a transit corridor, with an AC Transit bus <br />stop right at the comer of the subject site. Additionally, Planning staff has indicated to the <br />applicant that they may utilize the on-street parking immediately along the building's frontage, <br />which was increased by lO additional spaces to a total of 16 spaces, to count towards their guest <br />parking, with approval of the exception for parking in the Planned Development. Although staff <br />notes that these spaces will remain open to public use. <br /> <br />Transportation staff, as well as the West San Leandro Redevelopment Advisory Committee <br />(RAC), expressed concern about the lack of off-street parking for guests to the residential units, <br />as the on-street parking spaces would not specifically be designated for use by the project only <br />(i.e., they would remain public spaces available to anyone wishing to use them). The RAC <br />specifically had requested that staff and the Planning Commission consider limiting the possible <br />uses of the commercial space to office uses, or other uses with low parking requirements. At this <br />time, the commercial use has been eliminated, so the concern over commercial parking is moot. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Staff Report <br />PLN2006-00 I 04 <br /> <br />April 12, 2007 <br />Page 11 of 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.