18 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

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- foot parking 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 northem 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. Chair Blank inquired whether vibration from the trains would be an issue for the units and whether they planned to have any mitigation strategies for that. Mr. DiDonato replied that they had not yet addressed that but they were aware of that issue and would design to address it. Chair Blank noted that he would look for that solution when the application came back to the Commission. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor about the sound wall, Mr. DiDonato replied that it would be a minimum of 10 to 12 feet but that it had not been designed yet. Commissioner Fox noted that the rear yard setback was three feet and inquired whether all the buildings were three feet from the fence. Mr. DiDonato noted that the setback to the buildings was five feet and that the three -foot dimension was to the media center, which was an encroachment into the setback as allowed by the City. Commissioner Fox inquired about the notation on page 3 of the staff report. Mr. DiDonato replied that technically, that was not correct because the setback for the project was five feet to the building; the distance from the property line to the media center or fireplace was three feet. He suggested that the City clarify its definition as to what the setback would be. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 4 of 17