PC 072705 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Zach Haller, 32 Velasco Court in Danville, representing Mr. Ron Winter, described the project, explaining that the application was originally submitted in March 2004 to provide some housing for £rst-time homebuyers_ He stated that the project was presented to the Pleasanton Downtown Association, which expressed its concern for parking and curb appeal and for which a parking in-lieu fee of $28,000 was proposed. He continued that the applicant had worked hard with staff and redesigned the streetscape six times to address the garage and architectural designs, including replacing the garages with carports for the duplexes. He added that the project then underwent review by the Housing Commission, which supported the project, and a peer review whose recommendations the applicant has agreed to integrate into the project. He concluded that the project is affordable by design for young professionals who grew up in Pleasanton and who want to raise their children in the area_ fIc stated that this affordable housing project in the Downtown area is needed in Pleasanton and would be an outstanding addition to the City_ Acting Chairperson Arkin inquired if the applicant would be restricted to sell the homes to Pleasanton residents such that someone from Fremont would not be able to purchase the house_ Ms_ Nerland replied that there have been prior projects where a condition was added to encourage marketing the homes to people living or working in Pleasanton but not restricting the sale to Pleasanton residents. Commissioner Blank indicated that such a restriction would limit someone who had grown up in Pleasanton but bought a first house in Livermore or elsewhere because he or she could not afford a house in Pleasanton_ He stated that he did not like the idea of a restriction as proposed by Acting Chairperson Arkin_ In response to Acting Chairperson Arkin's inquiry regarding how the applicant planned to sell the homes to those who live in Pleasanton, Mr. Haller replied that the applicant already has one potential buyer and that the duplex would be rental properties. He added that the applicant is a commercial developer and that this is a residential project on the side. Emil Oxsen, 730 Paters Avenue, stated that he was the next-door neighbor and that he was not opposed to the development of the site_ He stated that he did not want to see the 60-foot tall walnut tree cut down but that it occupied too much room and would need to be cut down to provide room for the developmcnt_ He indicated that he was opposed to tandem parking and expressed opposition to the exterior design, pointing out that the five buildings were too close together, in contrast to the ten-foot setbacks between houses on St. Mary Street, and 15 feet on Pleasanton Avenue. He added that he wanted to see some style in the design, particularly since these would be the first homes to be seen coming from Peters Avenue, such as having one or two of the houses with stucco rather than wood. He stated that he did not like the carports and generally felt that the project was -- too dense_ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 2005 Page 25 of 31