PC 081308 - Laserfiche WebLink

be allowed to build within the bBuilding eEnvelope aArea but not in the oOpen sSpace aArea. She then inquired if the barn would count towards the fFloor aArea cCap. Mr. Pavan confirmed that a fully-enclosed accessory structure would count towards the cCap. Chair Blank asked whether a three-sided storage shed would count towards the cCap. Mr. Pavan replied that it would not because it is specifically exempted by the Pleasanton Municipal Code. Commissioner Narum then asked if such a shed could be built outside of the bBuilding eEnvelope. Mr. Pavan replied that based on staff’s recommendation, such a structure would still have to be built within the bBuilding eEnvelope. Commissioner Narum inquired whether the architect, Mr. Gorney, was present and available to answer questions regarding the height of the proposed structure when that part of the project was discussed. Mr. Pavan said yes. Commissioner Narum then inquired whether any thought had been given to how to minimize the impact of the construction on the already congested area around Foothill High School. She called particular attention to the heavy traffic times related to student drop-off and pick-up. Mr. Pavan responded that while special construction hours had been mandated in the past for projects occurring around elementary schools, the sStaff felt this was unnecessary for this project, which is located near the high school. He did point out that it was, however, up to the property owner to consider scheduling the construction work such that the workers would not be constrained by excessive traffic. Commissioner Narum then asked Mr. Jost, regarding Conditions Nos. 53 and 55 regarding the requirement to construct curbs and gutters within the development, whether the developers were being required to do so even though the road within the development was private. Mr. Jost confirmed thisat, stating the City’s desire to protect the area the retaining wall will be installed. He added that a curb might nbeed to be built near the entrance for drainage control. Commissioner Narum then askeds Mr. Jost, with respect to the new Condition No. 49 regarding the installation of water meters at each lot, why the Ccity would have to read all the individual meters when only the mMaintenance aAssociation would be billed. Mr. Jost explained the need to keep track of each owner’s individual water usage and noted that if the individual meters did not add up to the total water consumption, then the maintenance association MA would be required to cover the difference. He noted that this would also alert the maintenance associationMA to the possibility that there was a leak or some other problem. Chair Blank inquired whether this condition was standard as he had not seen it anywhere before. Mr. Jost replied that it was not standard but that it was needed because these would not be City- maintained lines. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 13, 2008 Page 7 of 26