Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Regular Meeting <br />Minute No. 95-22 <br />November 9, 1995 <br />Page 9 of 11 <br />Pong Ng, Citation: Explained that he had not seen such type of development and that color and <br />choice is quite personal in nature. Our hope is to appeal to the mass audience of buyers as <br />opposed to a certain segment in which 20% of buyers say that this is fantastic and 80% says that <br />they would not buy it because it is not what they want to see. Bricks and stone always add to the <br />elegance and perceived quality of the home and we have no problem considering putting those in. <br />Ravenstad: The General Plan that was approved for this project called for 4400 square foot lots. <br />The largest I see is 3510 s.f. I don't want to be accused of intimidating the developer, but I would <br />like to encourage you to look at some options and see if it is possible to put a ballfield in. <br />We are charged with the concerns of the whole community, not just this development. Our <br />responsibility is to this entire community. When we use the word community, we mean the City <br />of San Leandro, not just this development. <br />Pong Ng, Citation Homes: Phase IB is a 4000 s.f. minimum lot size. There are certain lots in <br />the cul-de-sac that exceed that square footage. <br />Emslie: There is no other prepared staff comments tonight. If there are no further Commission <br />questions, the only direction we would seek is whether or not an additional work session on <br />November 30 would be the Commission's pleasure. <br />Berger: Can we require some added architectural features to the projects as a condition? <br />Emslie: You can require it as a condition, you can provide some direction to the developer this <br />evening and if time permits, perhaps even have revisions brought back to you in time for the <br />November 30 meeting. You can then review them in another work session format. This tends to <br />be the most productive format for this kind of discussion. <br />Chin: Suggested that the Commission take a look at other developments with respect to the <br />Courtyard concept. It can be discussed at the next work session. <br />Reed: Suggested that a tour would be a good idea. <br />Dlugosh: Suggested that instead of another formal work session, that the tour be the work session. <br />Doesn't feel that the Commission would get any more information other than the visual. I think <br />that it is very important to look at the courtyard. I have never seen this type of project. <br />Ness: We have raised questions tonight. Perhaps the developer would like to consider the <br />Commissioners' comments and respond on November 30 --before the formal public hearing. <br />Dlugosh: My concern is that November 30 may not be enough time for the developer to pull it <br />together in such detail as to satisfy the Commission. The plan has been presented to us. The <br />details can be presented at any time. <br />Ravenstad: I would like to have another worksession because I would like to see some of the <br />architectural options and also have the developer come back prepared to discuss how they have <br />tried to fit a ball park in the project. <br />