11 - Laserfiche WebLink

permits do because, as one could imagine, most applicants don't want to spend the money on building plans for a project that may not get planning approval. Chair Balch said the massing on the front of the residence seems odd and that the front window seems small and off-center which he typically does not see in Pleasanton. He asked staff to address the design of the front façade. Mr. Beaudin directed the Commission to Page 2 of the plan set and described ways in which they could address the issues of massing on the front façade and the north facing window by redesigning the interior layout of the second story bedrooms. Chair Balch followed up asking if the Commission could continue the item to provide time for the applicant to work with staff to revise the plans. Mr. Beaudin replied yes, they could continue the item and ask for revised plans. Commissioners Allen, Nagler, and Ritter commented on their support of the Zoning Administrator's findings and decision, their understanding and appeal to the issues addressed by the neighbors, and their agreement to continue the item so the applicant could revise the plans. Commissioner Ritter referred to an aerial photo of the property showing a camper/trailer parked on the side of the residence, the three spaces in the driveway full, and several vehicles parked on the street in front of the property. He acknowledged that the proposed addition would likely impact parking and said he would like to see the two-car garage be made available for two vehicles to park in, in order to make finding number 3 as described in the Staff Report. Chair Balch provided a dissenting opinion, describing plans he had seen for homes with several bedrooms which were bedrooms by definition but not by use, for example: wine cellars, laundry rooms, photo developing rooms, etc. he explained how those specialty rooms can add value and function to the residence without impacting things such as traffic and parking. Therefore, Chair Balch said, he would not be evaluating the application on the number of bedrooms but rather the exterior design of the residence. Commissioner Brown summarized the reasons for which he considered the number of bedrooms to be of importance for this application. He said the number of bedrooms has an impact to the neighborhood and community with regard to foot traffic in and out of the residence, visitors, consumption of utilities, parking, valuation criteria from a real estate perspective and impact on neighboring property values, and massing. Commissioner Brown also addressed the issue raised by Mr. Broome regarding the FAR of 38.6%, and agreed that while it is under the maximum allowed 40%, it wouldn't be ideal in terms of massing and appearance. He agreed with Commissioner Ritter's request to see the garage used as intended, for the parking of two vehicles. Commissioner Allen asked what the typical FAR is in Valley Trails and what the maximum FAR is for any home in Valley Trails. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 12, 2017 Page 5 of 6