CCMIN051804 - Laserfiche WebLink

19-foot high, 240-square-foot, one-story cabana/guest house; and related improvements at 1340 Happy Valley Road. Zoning for the property is PUD-SRDR (Planned Unit Development - Semi-Rural Density Residential) District. Mr. Swift presented the: staff report. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Brozosky, Mr. Swift said that the roofing material is metal. Most metal roofs reflect certain sunlight. He would not expect this roof to have much in the way of a reflection given the type of orientation. He noted that this is primarily a single story house but it does have a two-story element. Mr. Brozosky and Mr. Campbell asked the applicant to address the issue of whether a metal roof was considered a Green Building feature. Mayor Pico declared the public hearing open. Ralph Adams, 1340 Happy Valley Road, applicant, introduced his architect who reviewed the design of the pro. ject. The architect noted that this project was designed for this site and neighborhood. The concept for this project is a grouping of agrarian forms to soften the mass of the building. The interior spaces were grouped around the exterior spaces. The entry porch is larger and is approximately 15 by 24 feet. The double roof is agrarian shaped, which creates a natural vent system for the attic. Materials to be used are those typical of farm buildings, and the materials used for the roof incorporate green building measures into the project. He noted that this project meets the green building design guidelines by 80 percent. Mr. Campbell asked the architect to discuss how the metal roof complies with the Green Building guidelines. It was the project architect's understanding that a metal roof is less polluting than asphalt shingles, and may take less energy to produce. In order to blend in with the neighborhood and harmonize with the environment, the applicant will specify a mat finish to the roof. Mr. Adams addressed the suitability of the project and prominence of the structure. Before the Planning Commission meeting, he met with his immediate neighbors and reviewed the plans. All of the neighbors supported his design, and letters of support were included with the plans. Since that time, he has met with others in the neighborhood and discussed his plans and received their support. Today, he has not received any opposition to this design from the neighborhood. He understood that the requirement to have the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission was to protect the character of the neighborhood for the residents. The main concern that was raised at the Planning Commission meeting by residents included large houses on small lots and the destruction of the agricultural nature of the area. Given the size of the lot, his house is relatively small, and the floor area ratio is less than five percent. The residents of Happy Valley support this project. The other concern that was raised at the Planning Pleasanton City Council 29 05/18/04 Minutes