Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner O'Connor inquired if the lots would be the same size as what is currently <br />being proposed if homes were constructed in that green area. <br />Mr. Schroeder said yes and that they would just have to reconfigure the plan. He noted <br />that the proposed site plan represents this as a cul -de -sac design. He added that when <br />they originally proposed this, they looked at two or three different designs with the Fire <br />Department, including a hammerhead, which is a little unusual, and the cul -de -sac, <br />which they thought worked better. He stated that if they did a hammerhead, two or <br />three houses could be lined up that would back -up to the creek and facing the end of <br />the cul -de -sac or street. <br />Commissioner O'Connor inquired if this would be a kind of land- locked private area if it <br />were left as a common area open space with no public access. <br />Mr. Schroeder replied that was correct. He added, however, that it is a public street so <br />anyone could drive down the public street and park there. He stated that for him <br />personally, it is more of a visual thing; it feels open, as opposed to feeling closed off if <br />there were houses at the end. He indicated that a builder /developer or someone who <br />has to sell homes to the public wrestles with these kinds of issues because they will <br />have to sell homes to people who have to figure out if they want to buy that house which <br />has a creek in the backyard that is part of their lot. <br />Acting Chair Blank noted that houses at the end of a cul -de -sac are generally the <br />premium homes. <br />Mr. Schroeder agreed. He noted that some people will not want to buy that lot because <br />they do not want to be responsible for that open space. He added that if the open <br />space were to be the backyard, the lot would probably be developed in a way that the <br />top of the bank would have a tube steel fence to prevent any access down the slope; <br />but the lot line would still go down to the middle of the creek. He noted that the lot <br />would actually be larger, but most of it would be unusable. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that he was just trying to contemplate whether or not, if <br />some or all of that area is utilized for construction, more open space could be created <br />between the homes so they did not look like they were stacked on one another. He <br />added that if the Pleasanton Heritage Association (PHA) is concerned about preserving <br />the house on Lot 1, one or two more lots could be added into the back area, and that <br />could offset any cost associated with renovating that house. He stated that he has not <br />seen the house so he has no idea what it is or if it is even worth preserving. <br />Mr. Schroeder stated that he was trying to address that point. He noted that when they <br />get the study about where the top of the bank actually is, and if there is an opportunity <br />to move the setback line based on further geological analysis, his thought would be to <br />try to open up the side a little bit more and probably do a little more side yard setback. <br />He indicated that the five -foot side yard setback is not unusual and is the standard <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 28, 2012 Page 7 of 38 <br />