06 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 5 P11-07091P11-0717, Dave Cunningham Applications for Design Review approval to replace the approximately 482-square-foot, single-story house located at 205 Neal Street with an approximately 1,844 square-foot, two-story residence and for Variances from the Pleasanton Municipal Code to: (1) reduce the front yard setback from the required 23 feet to 20 feet to accommodate the new house; (2) allow one required off-street parking space to be located in the required front yard setback; and (3) allow tandem parking. Zoning for the property is R-1-6,500 (One-Family Residential) District. Natalie Amos presented the staff report and described the scope, layout, and key elements of the proposal. Mr. Dolan summarized staff's thinking on this project and stated that there are a lot of issues, and they are complex and all interrelated: 1. Whether it was okay to take down the existing cottage. Staff asked for a study, and the conclusion by experts was that it was all right to remove the cottage. Staff is on board with that position. 2. Whether the variances are acceptable. There are some revisions that reduced the number of variances. In the Downtown neighborhood, there are very few properties that if built today as they are currently built, would not require variances. These variances are all reasonable and can be justified, except for the one reason that variances do allow additional square footage. This will be addressed later. 3. Whether the design fits into the neighborhood and whether it meets the design standards of the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). Staff's conclusion is that the design does fit, including the materials and the style. There were some nice revisions made that actually try and reduce the size and the impact to the neighbors, which are all very positive. It comes down to just this one issue that there is a specific policy in the DTSP that says "Protect the established size and spacing of the buildings in the residential neighborhood by avoiding excessive lot coverage, and maintain appropriate separation between buildings." In essence, this asks if the building is the right size for this lot. If the two structures are considered together on the lot, it does meet the technical requirement of the floor area ratio (FAR) at just under 40 percent. If they are considered as two building sites, and the pad for the cottage is currently well below, for someone driving by, it looks like a separate lot. The question is if what is proposed too big, which is basically what this policy is saying should be avoided. There is some subjectivity to that question, and staff's conclusion is yes; it is justified, verified, or supplemented by the fact that the FAR calculation on just that pad comes up as 65 percent, which is significantly more than the 40 percent. It does not mean it is not a nice house; if it were on a bigger lot, staff would probably recommend approval. Chair Narum inquired if the FARs calculated in the staff report are accurate. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, NOVEMBER 9, 2011 Page 1 of 17