PC 091003 - Laserfiche WebLink

.M"r. Iserson noted that existing vacant lots vvhere a house could be built vvere included in the house,. and that the cou.nt did not consist solely of lots that could be subdivided_ I'v'lr. Toomey believed that the tvvo-acre site minimum vvas too restrictive and incol"1sistent vvith the Happy Valley area", as vvell as Pleasanton and the Bay Area in generaL J---Ie noted that of the 104 properties in the plan" 70 of them had less thall tvvo acres., and 20 had less than one acre. He noted t11at the size of the City had more than tripled in the last 23 years,. and the design and planning of homes in the area V\Tere not consistent vvith the Specific Plan. I-Ie believed that a one or half~ acre requirement vvou.ld be more sensible and realistic. :rv1:r. Iserson noted. that the language vvas taken directly from the Specific Plan,. V\Thicl'1 stated an average of one lot per tvvo acres per property to maintain the density rules. Commissioner :rv1.:aas noted that the langu.age vvas cant-using,. and su.ggested drafting a letter to property c>vvners to explain in plain English vvhat could be done under the gu.idelines. Ke-vin Close" 871 Sycamore Road,. noted that the tvvo-acre language vvas vvritten into the Specific Plan" and that the one-acre limit vvas for previou.sly existing smaller parcels_ l"-:le inqu.ired vv-hy the City vvould set up a pur:> on u.nincorporated Cou.nty land,. and inquired vvbether it planned to annex the land. He vv-ish.ed to prevent a repeat of the Greenbriar Homes development on Sycamore Road. He noted that this Specific Plan did not detail 7",000 squ.are foot homes,. and that the rest of-the Happy Valley community had 1,,200- 1,,800 squ.are Toot homes_ l--le did not believe that constituted blending in the buffer zone_ I~Ie noted tha.t as soon as the Specific Plan vvas adopted" it vvas taken apart at. the City Council meeting. He did not believe the Specific Plan vvou.ld have any teeth vvitl10u.t the annexatiorL of the unincorporated area_ Jay Lofthouse-Zeis,. 6028 Alisal Street,. tha__n.Ked Steve Otto for al"1svvering his n'1any questions. He believed tl"1e pun standard had good intent" and noted that vvhen he tried to add to his house", it became a Development Plan because he vvas in the affected area. I--Ie noted that trying to meet the PUQ requirements vvas very difficu.lt,. and that many of the homes did not meet the requ.irements. He noted that his property vvas 80 feet -vvide,. and could not accommodate a 25-foot side setback,. vv-hich required a 175 root lot vvidth_ I-Ie no"t.ed tha"t. he vv-ould like to incorporate into the City,. DU"t. believed that adding a rec room or study ""auld not be possible because he did not comply ""ith most of the pur::> requirement. He noted that Steve Otto vvas unable to ansvver that specifIC question. 111 response to an inqu.iry by Commissioner Roberts", :rv1.:r. Iserson noted that nevv additions ""ere covered. He stated that if there v.rere constraints on the property that prevent the o",,"ner fron"1 T"l"'1ee"t.i:n.g the stnndards" there vvere mechanisms and processes to deal vv-it:h that" such as a minor modification to the pun to create an exception to the development standards Tor that lot_ PL~NNTNG CC>l'VIlVlISSIC>N lVlINUTES September 10. 2003 Page 19