PC 052108 Special Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

courtyard would see a deep outdoor living environment in addition to the private open space. He noted that the private open space ranged anywhere from 500 to 800 square feet, which was slightly under one-quarter acre or 9,800 square feet of usable private open space. He added that they examined the potential sociology of the units and carefully crafted the outdoor living environments to work with the indoor space plan. He noted that while there was a fair amount of hardscape, they had outdoor living areas associated with family rooms, outdoor kitchens, dining rooms, a wall fountain, and a pathway connecting the two outdoor living areas. He noted that in effect, a garden environment could be imported into the dining room, a design which, in his opinion, reflected an appropriate indoor and outdoor spatial relationship. Michael Paulza, Hunt, Hill, Jones Architects, addressed the discussion points brought up by the Commission. With respect to Point 3 (parking), he stated that he understood they were required to provide two parking spaces per home enclosed in a garage, plus, the layout provided two on-site spaces on the unit driveways for guests. They also provided four off-site spaces on Stanley Boulevard, creating 32 parking spaces for the complex, which brought 30 spaces overall in addition to what was required for the project. He stated that with respect to the setbacks, the Pleasanton Municipal Code dictates five-foot setbacks, which were provided and in conformance. He added that the rear setback for the units was five feet and pointed out the setbacks on the screen, noting that the media center and fireplace encroached into the setback, as allowed by the Pleasanton Municipal Code. He noted that the City suggested that there be 18- footparking aprons, potentially bringing the rear to seven feet rather than three feet. He noted that there were no rear setbacks less than five feet in the complex. Mr. Paulza noted the open space provided for the units and displayed the two plans on the screen. He noted that each plan was designed to act together, and each one was provided with a maintenance easement which essentially created a zero lot line development. The combination of the easements provided open space not less than 10 feet in any direction, creating the private open space. He noted that in the entire complex, there was an average of 421 square feet of private open space as defined under the 10-foot width, 150-square-foot minimums in the Code. He noted that their handout included a list of all the open spaces provided on-site. He noted that they came up with a 62-percent FAR rather than 70 percent and that they would be glad to demonstrate how they arrived at that figure. He noted that they had three plans, not two, with two elevations per plan, for a total of six elevations. He noted that there was a repetition of two to three elevations throughout the entire complex, which they believed was a good variety for 14 homes. He clarified that the heights were not 39 feet to the ridge. The highest point was 27 feet. He noted that most of the homes are gabled back at the front, and the highest point is always at the back and at the center of the home. Commissioner Olson noted that the site plan included a sound wall along the northern section, presumably to mitigate the sound of the trains. Mr. DiDonato confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Olson inquired whether, in addition to the soundwall, they planned to include any special materials in Units 5 through 8 with a wall that would face the railroad. Mr. DiDonato confirmed they would do that. He added that they did not believe the wall itself would be sufficient and that they were examining window systems and wall systems that will give the proper mitigation for the units in relation to the railroad noise. They were also considering buffering that edge with landscaping. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 5 of 26