PC 112812 - Laserfiche WebLink

subdivision side yard that they used in the homes they built all over Pleasanton. He added that the lots are conventionally plotted lots and the houses will be ten feet apart. He stated that this site was on the 30 -to- the -acre and 23 -to- the -acre Housing Element list, and, therefore, in his mind, this could be considered relatively low density for the site with a much different type of development than was potentially envisioned and is really fairly different than most of what else is out there. He noted that the site has a higher General Plan designation, and the properties adjacent to this site as well as those on the other side of Stanley Boulevard are significantly denser than this. He further noted that there is a lot of second buildings, detached garages, and other buildings that have been built on those properties and have a higher coverage ratio than what is being proposed on the site. He added that this kind of project is a PUD and has standards: it is going to be what it is approved to be, and it is not going to change; the property owners will not be adding buildings on their lots. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he was trying to change the aesthetics because having some green area as one drives down the back road or come through the court gives that feel of open space. He added that the houses on Lots 7 and 8 in the cul -de -sac are pretty close, and he just did not know if there were any options available; for example, moving another 10 or 15 feet just on one side of the street without wrapping around could result in more open space between the houses. He noted that a lot is gained from having that more open feel between the homes as well if it does not dramatically impact the feel of the open space at the end of the court. Mr. Schroeder stated that he is certainly willing to look at that and is what they hope to accomplish with this additional analysis they are doing. He indicated that as is stated in the staff report and as has already been discussed a bit, to retain the existing house where it is would lose take away three lots in this plan, and to get the same lot count, they would have to do smaller lots and obviously some smaller, tighter product. He noted that there would also be the issue of ownership of that house, which would be retained by the property owner. He added that it is not something he would really want to be selling new homes next to as it is not very attractive and he does not see anybody having any real economic incentive to do anything with it. Commissioner O'Connor asked Mr. Schroeder if the loss of three lots would be because of the positioning of that house. Mr. Schroeder said yes. Commissioner O'Connor inquired if the house would crumble if it were lifted and what it would cost to move it ten feet. Mr. Schroeder replied that he has not looked into that. He indicated that he has a full home inspection report which he has not yet submitted to staff; it does not even include a structural analysis but is pretty extensive in terms of the outdated nature of the property in its existing condition, termite damage, structural damage, outdated wiring, plumbing, etc. He added that from the outside, the house appears to have some PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 28, 2012 Page 8 of 38