PC 022603 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts, Mr. Iserson noted that statY was not prepared to move ahead with the residential green building ordinance because LEEDTT° had not developed their residential standards. Mr. Thiele noted that Item 5 of the Drag Conditions of Approval stated, "The building windows shall have exterior wood trim and sills _ _ _ ". He noted that the condition said nothing about wood windows. He would like to install true wood windows in the front, similar to 240 Spring Street, and install clad or vinyl/wood windows in the remainder of the building. The recon-tmendations for wood trim and wood sill would be followed. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Roberts, Mr. Thiele confirmed that 240 Spring Street had arched windows. Mr. Iserson understood that all the windows would be true wood, and did not know the details with respect to 240 Spring Street. He believed that Mr. Thiele's suggestion was acceptable because the front windows were the most visible, and suggested that true wood windows be used in the side windows as well. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED_ Commissioner Maas noted that the conditions attached to the other homes on Spring Street should be applied in this project. A discussion about the other older tract homes in the area ensued. Commissioner Maas noted that if the existing structure was an eyesore, the proposal was intended to improve that condition. She noted that the Commission's job was to ensure that the replacement was as good, or better, than the original structure_ She noted that the applicant played by the existing rules of the game, and added that if the Commission wished to revisit the sta.iidards, they should be applicable for future applications_ Commissioner Sullivan noted that the rules were unclear to him, and that he did not believe that the Commission had a good set of numbers to make a determination. He believed that the applicant provided a very good design, and that it was a great replacement for the existing building_ He appreciated the applicant's efforts to recycle as much material 33 posSlble_ Commissioner Roberts did not believe the numbers were confusing, and suggested that George Thomas explain the process to the Planning Commission. She advised that if the applicant began to demolish the structure without a permit, it should penalize them when they applied for their permits. She did appreciate what the applicant has done, and understood their reason for doing the two homes one after another. She noted that there were many Pleasanton homes built in the 1920s that were better constructed_ She believed that the reconstructed home would be better, and more useful, than the original building_ She noted that this area was not a high enough density for residenti al_ She believed that a business use would be positive. She noted that 228 Spring Street was not redone in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 2003 Page 10