CCMIN021704 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Swirl said yes. He pointed out that there are other properties along Sycamore Road, where if density was not going to be the defming factor but minimum lot size was, there would be a number of different property owners that could potentially ask for the same thing. Ms. Ayala said she had asked staffto provide copies of a staff report dated July 16, 2002, regarding the Moreiras' project, which is located next to the Haft(ers' property. At that time, she remembered that Council did approve a change from a three-lot development to a four-lot development. Council did discuss the fact that the property owner had resided in the City for 26 years and that Greenbriar had built four lots near the Moreira property of exactly the same size. She was persuaded by the argument at that time because the resident had resided in the City for 26 years, and because the lots were exactly the same size as the Greenbriar lots. She seemed to recall that Council had tried to get the FAR lowered on this particular project, although she did not believe the actual design plan had come before Council. She asked staffifthe design plan for the Moreiras project had come before Council? Mr. Swift said that the Moreira's new house had been approved, but none of the houses on other lots. Ms. Ayala believed Council had already set a precedent. Mr. Swift said that the Moreira project was not precisely the same project as the Hafkers. The Moreira project did meet the density requirements, which were less than two units per acre. Each of the lots met the minimum 15,000 square feet, and this followed the rules that staffis trying to use for the Hafker project. What was different was that the original allocation in the North Sycamore Specific Plan showed only three lots for the Moreira project rather than four lots. Therefore, the question at that time was whether the table was the controlling factor or whether the rules for the two units per acre, 15,000 square foot minimum lot size, would rule. In that staff took the position that the density plus minimum lot size took precedence over the estimated number of lots shown on the Specific Plan, because each of the lots was not precisely known in terms of its size at that time. Mr. Brozosky noted that the staffreport dated July 16, 2002 mentioned that the North Sycamore Specific Plan did not establish a maximum or minimum number of lots to be developed within its boundary. Each development plan was designed to be reviewed on its own merits with allowable density and lot sizes established. He believed there were two issues related to the Hafl(er's appeal: one issue being the minimum lot size, and the other issue being, generally, the number of lots per acre. He asked staffif this was what was at stake? Mr. Swift said the discussion about each lot being looked at on its own merits meant the absolute maximum number of lots that one could get at two units per acre. The minimum lot size of 15,000 is not guaranteed in the North Sycamore Specific Plan, which is the same as the Vineyard Corridor and Happy Valley Specific Plans; each project is Pleasanton City Council 23 02/17/04 Minutes