CCMIN030403 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Swirl explained that this parcel is not part of the Specific Plan area, yet the Plan Area surrounds it on three sides. At the time the Specific Plan boundaries were established, this property had a previously approved PUD and therefore it was exempted from the boundaries of the Plan area. Ms. Hosterman asked if the fees that would be collected from this development would be an integral part of the fees for Neal School. Mr. Swirl said the developer would pay fees just as if the project were a part of the Specific Plan area Ms. Hosterman asked Mr. Swift about the Planning Commission's recommendations mentioned in the Staff Report, Exhibit B, page 18, number 35, concerning the developer providing to the homebuyers pv (photo-voltaic) systems as an option. Mr. Swift said this was a requirement of the prior approval that the Planning Commission was using before implementation of the Green Building Ordinance and it was carried forward in this application. If one developer buys the project and builds it as one project, then the requirement is that one of the model options has a pv system that a homebuyer can purchase. Ms. Hosterman asked how much of a hardship it would be to require that this be made available to home purchasers if, in fact, the lots are sold separately, instead of as a group. Would this be a hardship to request that the developer provide pv options to the ultimate purchaser regardless of how it is packaged? Mr. Swirl said the intention would be to sell lots to individual homeowners who would then build their own houses. If they build their own house with their own design and their own plan, he didn't know how the City could incorporate a pv system in this sort of circumstance. The homes would be subject to the City's Green Building Ordinance. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Jon McCurdy, the applicant, thanked the Council and Mr. Swift for the work done on ttfis project. He said the only thing left undecided was the two-story vs. the slanted roof style for the structures. Mayor Pico said it appeared from the staff report that there was no agreement on the size of the homes. Mr. McCurdy said he was in agreement with the compromise. He thought that 40% of the lot size would be a fair compromise. The lots are big lots and as he has gotten into the development of this land, the fees are going to be approximately $65,000 per lot. A cul-de-sac will have to be built with curbs and street lights, drainage ditches, and Pleasanton City Council 5 03/04/03 Minutes