PC 012220 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Clark responded that the lot was .99 acres and the home was about 5,000 square feet. She clarified that the lots on the south side of the street were within the County, not the City's jurisdiction, therefore, they were not developed under the City's zoning requirements. She then responded that the position of the lot line would not impact the location of the building envelope. Commissioner Pace referenced the architectural design and Commissioner Allen's discussion of the size and view of the home; he asked about restrictions on the size of the home. He then requested clarification on landscaping guidelines. Ms. Clark stated the design guidelines adopted with the PUD would restrict size and massing of the homes on Lots 1 and 5. She explained the landscaping guidelines on Lots 1 and 5 and informal plantings requirement, with the landscaping subject to design review with the development of the site. Commissioner Pace asked if the homes to the west were designated as agriculture. Ms. Soo confirmed that they were designated PUD-A (agriculture). Commissioner Pace confirmed that the look and feel of the lot would be consistent with the neighborhood. Vice Chair Brown interjected that the nearby houses were large and not set back from the road due to the creek. He stated the proposed visual representation was more positive than the existing properties to the west. Commissioner Allen asked the worst-case mass and square footage on Lot 1 . Ms. Clark explained the maximum building area for all enclosed structures could not exceed 7,500 square feet, but the Planning Commission could choose to reduce the overall massing size of the home. In response to Commissioner Pace, Ms. Clark pointed out the exhibit depicting design guidelines and standards for review. Commissioner Allen asked about the setback from Dale Road. Staff displayed the site plan provided during the applicant's presentation. She then asked and confirmed that the distance was 25 feet from Dale Way. Commissioner Pace inquired how many residences could be built on the site and what constituted the residence. Ms. Clark explained that one single family home plus an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) was allowed; she explained the allowance for ADUs. Vice Chair Brown asked if there was an entitlement to a separate garage. Ms. Clark stated the guidelines did not restrict the location of accessory structures. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 13 January 22, 2020 lots and homes west of the property and referenced the size of the lots and homes near the proposed project. He then referenced the acreage between Lots 1 and 5 and discussed the applicant's willingness to move the lot line to create more or less a one-acre lot for Lot 1 but noted its impact on the creek. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 13 January 22, 2020 provided support for the project and encouraged the Commission to approve the plan, with whatever conditions may be set forth. Harold Roundtree, neighbor of the project, provided his support of the project, with the proposed five lots. Eron Bringhurst, Pleasanton resident and member of the Bringhurst family, stated the project would look consistent with the surrounding area. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 13 January 22, 2020