11 ATTACHMENT 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

that they started the company in 2005. He noted that they focused on quality of life issues and that they intended to provide a high-quality product. He noted that they tried to put a product forward that worked both with the community and were economically feasible to go forward. He noted that they will be happy to work with Pleasanton staff to move forward on this project. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Fox noted that it seemed that the applicant disagreed with whether they needed to do a rezoning. Ms. Decker clarified that the staff report identified one of the entitlements as required was a General Plan Amendment, and the correction was that they did not need to do so. She noted that the current General Plan land use designation was High Density Residential, in conformity with the Specific Plan land use designation. She noted that with respect to density for this particular designation, High Density Residential was eight-plus units per acre. At a density of eight units per acre, there would be a net of 9.6 or 10 units on that site. She noted that there was no midpoint or maximum for High Density Residential and that this particular calculation for the 1.2-acre site was approximately 11.6, which was approximately 12 units per acre, which was the density being proposed at this time. She noted that the Stanley reconstruction would remove parking on the south side of the street. She stated that currently, there was parking on both sides of the street and that only the parking on the south side would be removed with those street improvements. Ms. Decker noted that with respect to the discussion about homeowner associations, there was no real common open space area; the lots were divided to the street frontage, which was the 20-foot access way. She noted that a maintenance agreement would be provided because there was no landscaping or other common area to manage. She noted that a maintenance association would probably be the preferred method for this site, which led to the question of parking and storage in garages. She noted that the Planning Commission and staff have discussed the issue numerous times with developments and that particular requirement was generally placed in CC&R's because the City did not want to act as garage policemen. She noted that was an issue with many developments and that this particular project, like many others, would not be conditioned where the City would be responsible for insuring that garages did not have storage. She noted that would be an instrument or disclosure and that the residents in this particular PUD would be self- managing in terms of storage of materials or ensuring that the garages remained clear to provide parking. With respect to the lack of common open space area, Commissioner Fox inquired if staff would recommend a common open space area as was done in similar types of developments of this size, such as the one on Vineyard Avenue with a tot lot. She noted that some of the statistics provided by the applicant stated that the community park was a ten-minute walk. She indicated that she was confused by that as the Dolores Bengtson Aquatic Park was a five-minute walk, which was in the Amador Valley Community Park. She noted that Main Street Green was a five-minute walk but that it did not have a tot lot. She noted that Kottinger Village Community Park may be more than a ten-minute walk. She inquired whether staff ideally would like to see a common open area with a tot lot. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 10 of 17