PC 030916 - Laserfiche WebLink

it was around 4,800. I'm doing a little bit of rounding. Now the house is around 4,500 square feet and it has a 1,289- square -foot garage so it's about 5,800 square feet, so it's larger. And the reason I'm asking is that when I look at this diagram that David mentioned earlier and drove the property, it seemed like that was a pretty large house and so I'm now thinking it's going to be 20% larger. And so I'm wondering what the thinking was. And I know the Council approved the old plan and that could have been put in. This is significantly larger so I'm wondering what the thinking was on why the change. Ritter: Would you like to wait for all of our questions? Let's do that. There might be more and then you can answer them all. Any other questions? Allen: The other one was more of a technical question on the FAR. I'm looking at page 5 versus page 7; the two tables. On page 5, Table 1 for Lot 3 said the FAR was 20% and in fact if you work the math it's actually 23% because you have to include the garage space over 600 square feet. But then the next page has different numbers and I know the next page adds square footage for future additions, but even the base numbers are different. So I don't want to get us hung up necessarily, but I think the numbers are different, especially for Lot 3 and I didn't double -check all of them. Ritter: What page are you looking at? Allen: I'm looking at Lot 3; the FAR on page 5 which should be 20 %. If you just work the math on the square footage, it would be 22.9 %. And then I'm looking at page 7 of 15, Lot 3, and again, you might want to double -check it. But the bottom line is that we're really here to talk about perception and keeping a rural character more than some technical FAR number. So I won't get hung up with FAR as long as we've got consistency. I want to thank Guy for preparing the streetscape images. That was a question I had asked earlier and found that to be very helpful. I know that was done quickly and I really appreciate it. Thank you. In terms of the old plan that was approved versus this plan and the trees that were being taken out, do we have a similar strategy on which trees were being taken out 10 years ago versus now? Or, are we taking out more trees or less trees? Soo: As I recall, we're not taking more trees because the 2006 plan for Lot 3 sits further south. If you look at the topo map, the more southern portion you go, the more steeper the slopes and trees. So that would require more grading and removal of trees. For the current plan, it is question 4 which is more toward Dublin Canyon Road so there is less grading and it would not touch any of the trees in the back. Allen: Okay, thanks. And then I have one final question which is regarding the entrance driveway which I guess has space on one side for cars to park. Where I'm going is whether there is a way to preserve that oak tree. I don't know if there is. The big oak tree in front, but part of my thinking is whether there is a different way to design a driveway or a narrower kind of driveway such that we might be able to preserve that oak? The oak really adds a lot of character and it also screens the center house, and I think creates a very different environment than we're seeing in an open lot especially PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 9, 2016 Page 8 of 25