PC 052108 Special Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker commented that the Commission agreed that the FAR should be reduced and that staff will verify that calculation. Staff was unsure how staff's calculation differed in terms of the applicant's calculation with respect to whether or not the road was considered part of the calculation, which would make a tremendous difference. She noted that they may have counted the road, which would lead to a 52-percent to 71-percent FAR instead of an overall average of 70 percent. Staff will return with that information. She added that the parking requirement was noted as well. Commissioner Fox inquired whether the Pleasanton Heritage Association would see this item before it returned to the Planning Commission. Ms. Decker replied that she did not believe that staff has made a determination on whether or not the PHA would look at this particular project because it was not that close to Downtown. She noted that could be revisited if the Planning Commission would like that to be considered. Chair Blank suggested that it be left to the discretion of staff. Commissioner Fox inquired whether the PHA was concerned with everything within the Pleasanton Downtown area or just in the Heritage part of town. Chair Blank believed that was something that staff could research. Ms. Decker noted that it was on a case-by-case basis and that if the Commission wished, staff could revisit that issue to determine whether it should go to the PHA. She noted that sometimes the PHA was interested in projects, and staff understood that this project was not necessarily one of those projects. Commissioner O'Connor requested further clarification of the PHA's role and whether it was sanctioned by the City. Chair Blank noted that was a discussion for another time. He then thanked the applicant and the public speakers. No action was taken. A recess was called at 8:53 p.m. Chair Blank reconvened the meeting at 9:03 p.m. b. PUD-99-O1-07M, Jun Kim Application for a maj or modification to an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) development plan to reduce the rear and side yard setbacks for a water feature at the property located at 8024 Oak Creek Drive. Zoning for the property is PUD-R/LDR (Planned Unit Development - Rural/Low Density Residential) District. Ms. Decker noted that the applicant had not been present at the originally scheduled hearing on May 7, 2008, although he had been informed of the hearing. She noted that staff had been informed that he had been out of the country for some time. She stated that staff sent notification of this hearing to the applicant and requested that he sign the notification, indicating that he PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 19 of 26