PC 10/14/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ PUD-92-08. Pleasanton North Rotarv/Citv of Pleasanton Application for planned unit development rezoning to PUD (pIa ed Unit Development) High Density Residential District and development plan approval 0 construct seven attached residential units on an approximately 0.56 acre site locat d at the southeast corner of Palomino Drive and Concord Street. Zoning for the pr perty is RM-2,sOO (Multiple Family Residential) District, A negative declaration h been prepared for this project and will be considered at this hearing, Mr. Swift presented the staff report recommending approval of Case UD-92-08 subject to the conditions of the staff report. He called attention to a memo ex ressing concerns received from Valerie Hurst that had been distributed to the Commis ion, and also a letter from Elaine Walsh and her husband expressing their concerns, which had just been given to him. Commissioner Michelotti asked Mr. Swift to quantify what "affordab e" means in relation to the sales price for the proposed homes. Mr. Swift stated that those pie in the 120 percent of the median income should be able to afford a house around $175, ; assuming they have some down payment and low interest rates. The low $I()(),OOO's sho ld be affordable by a household at 80 percent of the median income. Staff particularly lik this project as there would be no need for a homeowners' association or any fees associat with that. The owners would have to maintain the property themselves as a normal ousehold would. Commissioner McGuirk referred to Condition 15 and also on page 6 He felt that it was confusing when speaking about maintenance of open space and com on areas and was not sure how an applicant might handle that. Mr. Swift replied there wi 1 be no homeowners' association to take care of common areas. The applicant would hav to agree to maintain his own yard and probably a jointly-owned driveway along the south ch nel. He noted that the Commission could delete this condition if they wished. Commissioner Finch abstained from any discussion as he had a con Commissioner Mahern referred to Ms. Hurst's concerns about the a equacy of parking for Unit 3. She had asked that the Commission consider widening the c mmon driveway to allow parking on one side or providing an additional off-street parki g space for Unit 3 similar to the recommended condition for Unit 2. Mr. Swift did not think there was enough room to do as she requested. Staff feels there is adequate parking i the garages, as well as around the site for visitors. Chairman Hovingh referred to parking for Unit 2 and asked if that s ace is exclusively for Unit 2. Mr. Swift affirmed that it is only for Unit 2. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED, Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1992 Page 3