08 ATTACHMENTS 4-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

flexibility. She noted that this was an opportunity for the Commission to consider whether this particular request should be increased by four units. Chairperson Fox inquired whether the applicant had a PUD -SRDR (Planned Unit Development Semi-Rural Density Residential) District and an approved PUD at this time. Ms. Decker replied that the applicant did. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Don Babbitt, Heartwood Communities, applicant, described the background and layout of the proposed project. He noted that they had discussed the possibility of the new residents being able to have horses on that kind of acreage and that people would not likely plant on or care for an entire two acres. Some Councilmembers suggested putting in some smaller lots that could be fully landscaped and maintained to back up to the golf course; they also considered replacing the chain link fence along the driveway that went back to Mr. Jensen's property with a wrought -iron fence. They had held discussions with staff as well as Greenbriar Homes with the idea of somehow buying some of the unused density from the Spotorno property. He noted that they considered putting the four lots towards an amenity fee to be put towards the cost of the bypass road. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the identity of the Councilmembers, Mr. Babbitt replied that he believed they were Councilmembers Matt Sullivan and Steve Brozosky. Chairperson Fox recalled a similar request approximately three years ago with less than minimum lot sizes which the Planning Commission rejected. Ms. Decker indicated that she did not recall that request. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether there had been a similar instance in the North Sycamore Specific Plan or the Happy Valley Specific Plan where the density had been increased compared to what the Plans provided, Ms. Decker indicated that she could not recall an example that would be representative of this particular proposal. She added that staff looked at each project on a case -by -case basis. She noted that a plan that had been disallowed in one part of Pleasanton may not be disallowed in this particular case. She noted that the City would not require nor engage in purchase of density from one particular development to another. She emphasized that the appropriateness of the proposal was the question before the Commission. Commissioner Olson disclosed that he met with Mr. Babbitt, walked the property, and talked with the owner. He inquired how the seven lots compared to the size at Serenity at Callippe development. Mr. Babbitt replied that his lots that backed up to Lots 2, 3, and 4 were 22,000 to 25,000 square feet; Lot 5, which backed up to the EVA, was approximately 33,000 square feet. Ms. Decker added that they were smaller than one acre and smaller than the Tots at the Serenity at Callippe development. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 22, 2007 Page 2 of 3