PC 082207 - Laserfiche WebLink

Hardiplank-style siding was added to the walls and that several cornices with brackets were added along the elevations. Balconies were added throughout the elevations, and more residential-style, smaller windows were likewise added. Raised planters were also added along the base of the buildings. Staff felt the revised plans were a very nice improvement which will fit in nicely with Pleasanton. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O’Connor regarding whether new details on the parking were available, Mr. Otto replied that they were not yet available. He added that the reddish coloring on the rendering represented brick veneer. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding the difference in interior court open space square footage between the old and new plans, Mr. Otto replied that the applicant would be able to supply that information. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the Municipal Code’s requirements for private open space for multi-family zoning districts, Mr. Otto replied that the standard requirement was 50 square feet. He noted that because this project was a PUD, the Planning Commission and City Council may approve any proposed square footage. Staff had recommended to the applicants that they use the Pleasanton Municipal Code as a yardstick. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox, Mr. Otto confirmed that the City may only approve 350 units a year under the Growth Management Program; however, for affordable housing projects such as this one, he believed there was an additional 100 units that can be allocated each year. He believed there may be future allocations that could be brought into the current year to allow construction in a shorter time frame. He stated that he would present more information on this matter at the next hearing, including information on phasing. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether the new buildings in the exhibit had an additional story compared to that at the last workshop for this application, Mr. Otto confirmed that in order to accommodate more interior open space, an additional floor had been added above the retail portion to yield one retail floor and four apartment floors. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the difference in floor area ratio (FAR) between the two plans, Mr. Otto replied that he did not have the square footage of the new building but that staff would return with that information. Ms. Decker noted that during the discussions between staff and the applicant to attain more open space, they did talk about the opportunity to go higher as well as to remix the proportion of unit sizes. She emphasized that this workshop was to discuss the architecture of the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 22, 2007 Page 5 of 20