18 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

EXHIBIT G PREV -695, Dave DiDonato, Donato Builders, Inc. Work session to review and provide comment for a proposal for a PUD rezoning and development plan to construct 14 two -story single - family detached homes n an approximately 1.2 -acre site located at 4189 Stanley Boulevard. Ms. Soo summarized the staff report and presented the background, scope, and layout of the proposed project. Commissioner Fox inquired about the layout of the project, particularly about the fire turnaround. She noticed that between Lots 4 and 5, and Lots 6 and 7, there was an extension of landscaping that came out on either side into the fire turnaround area. She inquired whether there was a particular reason why it came out so far. She stated that she believed that if it were to be reduced, the fire turnaround area would be a bit larger. Ms. Soo replied that the layout of the turnaround met the requirements of the Fire Department. Commissioner Fox noted that the layout was unusual and that it did not appear to be a typical cul -de -sac configuration. She inquired whether the Pleasanton Heritage Association (PHA) was given notice on this item and whether it had any comments. Ms. Soo noted that the PHA had not been noticed. She added that staff was interested in the Commission's comments and that it was not a project that would need to go to the PHA for comments. Ms. Decker noted that the fire turnaround evolved from the original application. She stated that the site plan originally came in for review with almost completely paved drive and common area with no landscaping. An effort had been made to provide additional landscaped area, and this particular proposal provided more landscaped areas. She noted that the hammerhead turnaround fit within it, and the amount of green space was optimized up to that turnaround. She noted that this proposal could be modified accordingly. Commissioner Fox noted that the floor area ratio (FAR) was approximately 70 percent and inquired whether there were other 70- percent FAR's in the Downtown area. She further inquired whether that would push the envelope. Ms. Soo stated that she did not recall any 70- percent FAR's Downtown but that she had not performed the research to verify that information. Commissioner Narum noted that this was a private road and inquired what criteria were used to determine what constituted a private road and a public road. Ms. Decker replied that the determination of whether a road was public or private was based on how the structural section may be developed and whether or not the City or the applicant may request to have it be public or private. She stated that there may be subdivisions with 28 -foot or 32 -foot road widths that comply with the structural section, but the development may request that it be private. She noted that in this case, the width of the road was Tess than any of the City's standards, and, thus, it was considered more of a driveway than a street. She added that from the City's viewpoint, it would be preferable to have it be a private road and to serve more as an access drive than an actual street. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 1 of 17