PC 051116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Brown: I just wanted to ask one quick question. So you clarified the question I had in terms of the two views which is great. Unlike in the plan of Item 5.a. where it was part of the plan that it had to be less than 20 percent if it was going to be a two -story, there's nothing in the specific plan that talks about going beyond the limit, right? I know staff said in generalities, when you compare the two views, I mean based on the distance of the rendering, you're not going to see the difference of three feet so I'm not quite sure I understand the value of the two graphics. Can you elaborate more about the justification of going beyond the specification in the specific plan in terms of going to the greater height requirement? Weinstein: So the specific plan itself provides some flexibility for deviating from the two - story, 25 foot standard above 540 feet in elevation. And you're right —there aren't any specific thresholds for looking at second stories in that case and whether they might be acceptable or not under the flexibility provisions of the specific plan. So what we do is we look at whether these deviations from the standards comply with the overarching objectives of the specific plan; which are to reduce the appearance of buildings on hillsides, to preserve the existing topography, and to essentially reduce the visual impacts of projects. What we have here on Lot 1 is a 6,000- square -foot house. The footprint of the second story is roughly 1,400 or 1,500 square feet, so it's a very small fraction of the first story footprint. That's one key issue. The second thing we look to of course are the visual simulations and a comparison of the 25 feet to the 28 feet, 4 inch building. And as you can see from the visual simulations, there's not a big difference in visual effect between them and so that's what they really intended to illustrate. There isn't going to be a visual impact associated with that second story and the couple foot increase in building height. So in the absence of specific criteria to look to in the specific plan that will allow for a second story of additional building height, we looked at broader objectives of the specific plan and it seems this project as currently proposed conforms to the overall aesthetic intent of the specific plan. Commissioner Brown: I guess my question was specifically that the specific plan says single story and 25 feet when over elevation 540, right? And that's what I was asking. I know you're saying it allows for variance. Somebody made a conscious decision to say single story over 540, 25 feet or less, so I was just probing on that one point. Weinstein: Yes, typical of any policy document like a specific plan, it doesn't necessarily have specific development regulations embedded in it. There's often times room for deviation from that development guidance and there is specific language in the specific plan that says there is flexibility in applying the site development standards and that can be a function of unique site conditions with the objective of getting the best design possible. The two story restriction and the 25 -foot restriction above elevation 540 isn't a specific, never -to -be exceeded, site development standard. Chair Ritter: If there's any speaker cards come up. I have the applicant, Frank Berlogar. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Frank Berlogar, Applicant: Chair Ritter and members of the Commission, thank you. There is something unique about this project and that is that it is not visible from any City street in Pleasanton. Those two homes are only visible from perhaps a dozen to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 11, 2016 Page 8 of 12