PC 05/08/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

.~ Commissioner McGuirk asked Mr. Thompson to show them the site and setbacks on the drawing. Commissioner Horan questioned Mr. Thompson as to how the recreation area will be laid out. Mr. Thompson explained that this would be laid out so that it will not intrude or overlook anyone's yard. In response to Commissioner Horan's question, Mr. Thompson explained that the proposed fence is basically a good neighbor fence. He said at the present time it is a mixture of fence heights and materials. He said it presently goes from 8 ft. to 4 ft. and back up to 6 ft. He said he is not sure who will end up paying for the fence, but felt he probably would pay for it, as noted by Mr. Swift. He would try to make the fence more uniform in height. Mr. Swift noted that staff is not conditioning the fence to be 8 ft. in height. Commissioner Wright felt there were some discrepancies as to the drawings and asked Mr. Thompson to explain them to him. Mr. Thompson clarified this for Commissioner Wright noting that the discrepancy was because one drawing measured from the porch pad and the other drawing from the house foundation. Commissioner Michelotti asked Mr. Thompson if he is planning to sell the other two lots before they are built. Mr. Thompson said he is not sure right now ~ whether he will build on them first, but might sell the lots. Commissioner Horan asked Mr. Thompson to discuss his concern about Condition 11 and the cul-de-sac. Mr. Thompson said he is basically concerned that this would be a public turnaround and that people would end up parking in his driveway. Mr. Swift explained that the intent is that it will be a turnaround street or cul-de-sac but the public would not be allowed to park there. In response to Commissioner Hovingh's question, Mr. Swift said there will be three driveways coming off the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Michelotti asked Mr. Swift to address the issue of R-1-6500 versus R-1-8500 and R-1-10,000. Mr. Swift explained that because there are no houses on Lots 1 and 3, they tried to take the usual sideyard standards. He said that what staff has typically done on these kinds of PUD's is to use the zoning district that is closest in size to the lots that are proposed. Staff feels most strongly about the 10ft. setback on the south side, but they do not feel that strongly about the setback between the house and the private driveway. Commissioner McGuirk asked for clarification to locations of yards on Lot 2 versus Lot 1. Mr. Swift said the front yard of Lot 1 would face Lot 2; the rear yard would face Sunol Boulevard. He noted that should houses be built on Lots 1 and 3 they would have to appear before the Design Review Board. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 8, 1991 Pai. 6 ,. -