PC 042308 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Pearce regarding the definition of "architecturally significant" versus "architecturally insignificant," Ms. Decker replied that an architecturally significant structure would be considered to have components that are unique, that identify a certain architectural style, and that have an age or historical component that would be considered important. She added that was a subj ective opinion by many. Chair Blank noted that with respect to fire sprinklers, Condition No. 14 on page 3 of Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval, read: "The future renovations and/or new buildings shall be equipped with automatic fire suppression sprinklers as required by the Fire Department." He read from another project the standard condition: "The buildings covered by this approval shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system. Plans and specifications of the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be submitted to the Pleasanton Building Department for review and approval...." He believed that past conditions contained more specificity about the fire sprinklers and wanted to ensure that essential language had not been left out. Ms. Decker responded that staff could include the condition of approval to the one they were accustomed to. Chair Blank wished to ensure that every applicant was being treated the same way. Ms. Decker noted that the language could be modified to read "as required" rather than "as required by the Fire Department." Chair Blank agreed with that change. With respect to the FAR question, Ms. Decker replied that the staff report for PUD-95-O1 stated that Lot A and Lot B were 4,366 square feet, and the FAR was 27 percent, as proposed. Lot B had a FAR of 24.4 percent; lot coverage was a different calculation of 33.9 percent and 31.7 percent. She noted that lot coverage was the actual building footprint area within an area or a lot; the FAR was the total square footage that included all stories and all areas of the building itself. Commissioner Narum noted that she was satisfied with those numbers and that they matched what she had pulled out of the report. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor regarding the resulting lot sizes of the two neighboring PUDs after the lot split, Ms. Decker replied that the lot sizes on the memo (PUD-95-1) was 4,132 square feet, and 6,246 square feet. She noted that they were comparable in terms of Parcel A being 4,085 square feet and Parcel B being 5,161 square feet. The total overall site area was 10,378 square feet, and the existing parcel was approximately 9,246 square feet. She added that in PUD-91-9, the square footage of the site was 7,359 square feet, with the resulting two parcels of approximately 4,000 and 3,000 square feet. She noted that this particular development was consistent. Commissioner Fox inquired whether, in the light of the new FARs, each parcel could theoretically have a detached second unit allowed by law, thus having four houses on the lot. Ms. Decker replied that Table 2.1 stated that with a 40-percent FAR, a total square footage of 1,634 and 1,900 square feet. If the lot could be sited and developed in such a way as meet the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 23, 2008 Page 6 of 28