PC 011404 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. MacDonald noted that the NSSP laid out the plan with the general concept of two units per acre for each of the original owners. When they developed their financing plan, they divided by two to get the rough allocation of the number of lots. Staff had made it clear that it was intended as au estimate of the number of financing shares and the expected outcome of the plan; he believed that was the adopted stance of staff. He noted that for every lot that was created, the owner must pay a lot share. He noted that it was generally accepted that the road would have gone behind the Moreira parcel; however, Greenbriar opposed that plan. He noted that accommodations were often developed to arrive at the ultimate vision of the plan. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox, Mr. MacDonald displayed and described the site map. He believed that the applicants' proposed plan met every requirement of the Specific Plan. He noted that if the Commission could not make the findings of the Specific Plan Land Use Map, the site did generally conform with the gross density and was consistent with the Specific Plan because of the 15,000-square-foot lot. He believed that not only would the proposed plan help the applicant but would also help the City meet the vision of the Specific Plan and the General Plan Housing Element. Russell Moreira, 558 Sycamore Road, noted that he was the owner of property adjacent to the subject site and supported the applicants' project. He agreed with Mr. MacDonald's comments and noted that he had an agreement with the Haflcers with respect to using the road on his property for his back property. He noted that the Haflcers had agreed to take the three-story barn _ down and added that he would support that action. He believed that the project would be an attractive addition to the area and that it would improve the housing situation in Pleasanton. Vanessa Kawaihu, 871 Sycamore Road, inquired whether Lots 1 and 2 would access Sycamore Creek Way and noted that she would not be in favor of taking access from Sycamore Road. She inquired about the floor area ratio (FAR) requirement for these lots and noted that she did not want to see houses that were too big for the lots. Mr. Iserson thought that the FAR for this district was 25 percent. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Iserson did not believe that there was any precedent with respect to getting density credit for roadways which were already dedicated and constructed. Chairperson Roberts acknowledged Mr. MacDonald's arguments about what was meant for the Specific Plan. She had a lot of trouble with the PUD that was established in 1996. At that time, a certain number of lots were given to this particular PUD from the Backers, who had good financial fortune from the sale and division of the 12 lots. At that time, the roadway easement was given. She did not want to go back to every person who had a parcel created from a PUD in order to get a little more out of it. She appreciated the Hafl<ers' situation as well as Mr. MacDonald's arguments but believed that a major modification of the PUD and NSSP would be "' required. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2004 Page 11 of 22