CCMIN110408 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker discussed concerns and amendment of Conditions 10 and 11 by the Planning Commission relating to density, carports, tree removal, expansion or change to historic structures, noise, and language in Condition 24, neighborhood concerns regarding traffic and parking. She noted the Pleasanton Heritage Association (PHA) provided a letter supporting the plan and suggested that quality materials be used. She said the Planning Commission unanimously supported the project and recommended the Council provide a favorable decision, they found that the PUD development plan is consistent with the General Plan and the PUD Ordinance, that staff make the PUD findings as outlined in the staff report and introduce the draft ordinance, approving Case PUD-72 subject to conditions of approval. Councilmember Sullivan said he discussed the project with the PHA and confirmed that the City would review the proposed windows to meet the intent of the condition. He referred to the carports and questioned if there was language in the Downtown Guidelines for carports in general and questioned if they were encouraged or discouraged. Ms. Decker referred to pages 38 and 39 of the Design Guidelines, and carports are indicated to be architecturally compatible with residential structures and of substantial construction. She said staff tries to have carports pushed away from the frontage as much as possible, look at the site development, and detached garages are preferred and should be located to the rear of the site. Therefore, because it does not say carports should be located at the rear, the intent of the idea is to have the unit forward with parking towards the rear of the site. Councilmember Sullivan confirmed that the guidelines did not include any preferences for garages over carports. Vice Mayor Thorne disclosed his visit to the site and meeting with the applicants. He questioned if the City has the ability to require disclosure of the railroad by the site. Ms. Decker said yes, there is a listing of disclosures in the conditions of approval that addresses this, as well as a condition for noise and vibration from the rail corridor. Vice Mayor Thorne questioned if the noise standards of 45 and 50 dBa are time weighted averages, and Ms. Decker said 45 dBa is averaged over time as a constant and 50 dBa is for single event. Councilmember McGovern voiced concerns about the FAR on the lots. She acknowledged carports are not counted, but they do take up space on the site, and she questioned whether the City should be counting them in the total FAR in the downtown in the future. She also said there is discussion about adding accessory structures. She referred to a chart that shows maximum development per lot, and under RM15 the maximum house size for Lot 1 would be 1,520 square feet, the additional square footage brings it to 1,620 square feet. Ms. Decker said this was an error in her presentation. The maximum RM15 house size would be 1,520 at a 40% FAR. Under the proposal for Lot 1, the FAR limit is 44% which allows the 1,620 square foot home size. She confirmed the lot was currently zoned RM15 and the City is rezoning it to PUD HDR and utilizing the RM15 site development standards. Councilmember McGovern questioned the reason it had to go from RM15 to PUD HDR. Ms. Decker said it allows flexibility to review the project and to maximize the opportunity for the greatest setbacks and meet the open space requirements, particularly when looking at access into the site. City Manager Fialho said the Council could add a condition that would not allow any livable accessory structure on the property, but provide exemptions to outdoor landscaping-related facilities to minimize the impact from the FAR. Councilmember McGovern supported arbors, City Council Minutes 3 November 4, 2008