PC 052108 Special Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

applicants had thought the issues through and had worked with staff and that a prof ect like this would taken advantage of the land that was available to house Pleasanton's residents. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether he was affiliated with the applicant, Mr. Martin replied that he was not affiliated with the applicant, was not a realtor for the applicant, and did commercial property management. He noted that he had an interest in what was going on in the community. Mr. DiDonato noted that the staff report stated that he was applying for a General Plan Amendment, which he stated he thought to be incorrect. He noted that they were following the guidelines in the Downtown Specific Plan and that they were not requesting increased density; they intended to fit into the density set forth in that Plan. He noted that they wished to rezone the property from R-1-6,500 to the current density. He noted that they came up with the development and design based on the guidelines set forth by the City for this particular site. He stated that he did not believe they were too far from what was proposed in the Specific Plan. He noted that they were a local builder that they were conscious of the area, and tried to create quality products. He noted that he had just completed a project in Livermore, on the corner of Chestnut and L Street, which was a redevelopment prof ect. He noted that they turned that blighted property into eight nice homes. He noted that was their main focus and added that creating infill housing was challenging. He noted that there were developers who would not do infill housing. He noted that they had a strong background in construction for over 30 years and that they started the company in 2005. He noted that they focused on quality of life issues and that they intended to provide ahigh-quality product. He noted that they tried to put a product forward that worked both with the community and were economically feasible to go forward. He noted that they will be happy to work with Pleasanton staff to move forward on this prof ect. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Fox noted that it seemed that the applicant disagreed with whether they needed to do a rezoning. Ms. Decker clarified that the staff report identified one of the entitlements as required was a General Plan Amendment, and the correction was that they did not need to do so. She noted that the current General Plan land use designation was High Density Residential, in conformity with the Specific Plan land use designation. She noted that with respect to density for this particular designation, High Density Residential was eight-plus units per acre. At a density of eight units per acre, there would be a net of 9.6 or 10 units on that site. She noted that there was no midpoint or maximum for High Density Residential and that this particular calculation for the 1.2-acre site was approximately 11.6, which was approximately 12 units per acre, which was the density being proposed at this time. She noted that the Stanley reconstruction would remove parking on the south side of the street. She stated that currently, there was parking on both sides of the street and that only the parking on the south side would be removed with those street improvements. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 11 of 26