3_Exhibits A & C-F - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Hagen said both are high density but since they did not have a development plan approved, they do not have PUD development standards. When the PUD plan expired, it would fall back to the R-1-20 standards. So currently, if either of the homes wanted to add on, they would follow the single-family R-1-20 standards which require setbacks of 20 feet in the front, 5 feet along the sides and 20 feet in the rear and up to two stories. Discussion Point 1: Are the overall site plan, landscaping, parking, and access/circulation acceptable? Commissioner Brown expressed his agreement on all proposed points and feels that changing the design to three lots from four was a favorable decision given the amount of space. Commissioner Ritter said he did not support flipping the plan, supported the possible installation of larger-size initial tree plantings, stated the two-car garage was favorable, and he did not believe the wrap-around porch was an issue as it relates to the circulation of the front entrance to the home. Commissioner Pace referred to the limitations being set at the State-level to create more housing and the importance to comply with those requirements while adhering to and balancing these to the preservation of the City, privacy issues, etc. He expressed his opposition to the color scheme and to the homes front-facing Stanley Boulevard. Discussion Point 2: Does the Planning Commission support the proposed building positioning, massing and home designs including architecture, colors, and materials? Commissioner Pace said he was in agreement to the massing; however, he did not agree to the color and asked to conform to the historic nature of what is done in the community. Commissioner Brown agreed with Commissioner Pace's comments about colors and materials, and said he was in favor of the wrap-around porch for the home facing Stanley Boulevard. Commissioner Ritter expressed his desire to have a color palette for the City of Pleasanton and thought the Ponderosa Homes development and Irby Ranch development have great color choices. He referenced the lack of a master bedroom on the main floor and asked that the applicant consider this. He agreed with the massing, roof designs and mentioned it is designed within the zoning of the current neighborhood. Discussion Point 3: What other information would assist the Commission in its decision on the proposal? Do you have any other comments on the project? Commissioner Brown referenced story poles as mentioned in the Agenda Report and wanted to see the design with the inclusion of story poles. He referenced the discussion surrounding lack of privacy presented during public comment and said he would like to see the applicant look at window placement and consider larger trees to address neighbors' privacy concerns, but could not see anything non-compliant and was open to modifications after looking at the story poles. Commissioner Pace had no additional comments in relation to Discussion Point 3. Excerpt: Planning Commission Minutes, June 12, 2019 Page 4 of 5 decision on the proposal? Do you have any other comments on the project? PUD-133, 3987 Stanley Boulevard Planning Commission 10 of 11 any items it wishes to be addressed before the project application is formally presented to the Planning Commission. The first two questions below are topical PUD-133, 3987 Stanley Boulevard Planning Commission 9 of 11 s equipment, oil, gas, chemicals, harmful materials, fill or storage. PUD-133 Planning Commission Page 17 of 18 rading or subdivision permit, whichever occurs first. The City will retain the cash deposit until all work is substantially complete, all areas are stabilized, and all hazards are mitigated to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering/City Engineer. PUD-133 Planning Commission Page 13 of 18 Page 12 of 18 S: The applicant's California licensed geotechnical engineer shall inspect and approve the PUD-133 Planning Commission Page 9 of 18