PC 052108 Special Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

side and did not believe they cared about setbacks as much as the residents of her townhome community because that side of the property did not have any windows. Don Adams pointed out the location of their property on the overhead screen and agreed with his wife's request to adhere to the current zoning and not allow a higher density. He noted that there would be parking, traffic, and other issues to contend with if a higher density were to be approved. He noted that there were 36 units in their complex, with 18 guest parking spots and two-car garages. He noted that even if the use of the garage were conditioned to not allow storage, in reality, the garage was their domain and they can do what they want with it. He noted that it was very difficult to obtain compliance even though it was spelled out in the CC&R's. He noted that their CC&R's have the same no-storage provision and that some owners do not comply. He noted that parking would be an issue and that people would have to move parked cars to allow neighbors to back out of their garages. He stated that he believed that it would be very difficult logistically and that eight homes would be an appropriate number of homes. He added that there maybe noise issues as well and that this development would be too close to their complex. He noted that if the developers were to aim for maximum profit, then they would want a larger number of units or go three stories up. However, he stated that he believed that quality of life was very important. Commissioner O'Connor asked Mr. Adams how many units were in his development. Mr. Adams replied that there were 36 units on approximately 2.3 acres; they had a 15-foot setback. He noted that some of his neighbors had three cars, and they were working on a placard system for extended parking to accommodate those neighbors. He noted that anybody can park on Stanley Boulevard and that the four parking places on Stanley Boulevard would be available to anyone and not just the proposed development. He noted that they could not guarantee those parking places and added that there were often ten cars parked in front of his complex. Darell Walterson pointed out the location of his home on the overhead screen and noted that it was built in 1914 and was built on the property line. He stated that he had a detached garage in the back left-hand side of the lot and that the backyard of a potential neighbor would have a demising wall adjacent to their lot. He noted that he had a backyard shop and that he uses power tools, as well as creating metal sculpture, which was sometimes noisy. He noted that he would be installing solar panels on his garage and that there would be a sunlight easement, both of which may be a concern. He noted that the house on 4189 Stanley Boulevard was an older house and inquired whether the Pleasanton Heritage Association should look at it. He noted that there were some very large trees at that location as well. He stated that he believed a winery would be a good addition to Downtown Pleasanton and provide a connection at this site. He noted that Old Stanley Boulevard may be realigned, that sidewalks may be placed on the north side, and that they would lose an eight-foot gravel Swale with natural percolation. He noted that they did not have any natural drainage and that the percolation kept the water from going into the arroyo. He stated that he believed impervious surfaces with accelerated runoff would put more pollutants into the arroyo. With respect to the realignment of Stanley Boulevard, he stated that he understood they wanted to put the parking on the north side and leave the south side of Stanley Boulevard in a natural state with the older homes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 9 of 26