CCMIN021704 - Laserfiche WebLink

Specific Plan is the General Plan at each location." He pointed out that the PUD needed to be addressed, as the Planning Commission went offon that issue. He did not have a problem with the original PUD which limited the Hafkers to two lots because it was originally conceived before the Hafkers received the additional land. The only way someone would develop this with three lots would be to place a cul-de-sac fight down the middle of the property and have two long, skinny lots with a triangle lot at the back. When staff placed a PUD on the property that limited it to two lots, a design would be figured in such a way that it would end up with odd shaped lots. As a former urban planner, he believed it made sense that there would be this type of restriction, but believed PUD's are meant to be changed when circumstances have changed. He pointed out that PUD's are always required to be consistent with the Specific Plan. A PUD can either be consistent with the Specific Plan and still be denied if it cannot meet city development standards, or if it is incompatible with the neighboring homes. He was confident that this property could meet PUD development standards and, unless it was implied that a Specific Plan amendment was required, the applicants would expect to be provided neighborhood support. He noted that the Hafkers started with the support of all of the neighbors directly adjacent to the two 17,000 square foot lots, specifically Ted and Deanna Robinson who have signed the plan and stated that they support it. He stated that Russ and Betty Moriera also support the plan. All of the people who are directly affected by this property prefer the layout that is currently being proposed. If the Hafkers had to begin with an amendment to the Specific Plan, they would begin with a false strike against them. The applicants are not asking for an exception to the Specific Plan, but are asking for the City to follow the Specific Plan. If the intent clause is the basis for this, or if the General Plan density designation is the basis for that, then in both cases, the wording in the Specific Plan counteract that. It is generally intended to conform with two-units per acre and the Specific Plan is the General Plan at this location, and the General Plan states that is how it is supposed to be. He addressed the issue raised with regard to the setting of a precedent and pointed out that overall, the North Sycamore Specific Plan would come out lower in density than it was o~ginally planned for. He believed there might be one or two other lots where someone could theoretically come up with an additional unit. Hermine Hafker, 565 Sycamore Creek Way, applicant, said that she and her husband had been cooperative with City staff, the neighbors and Greenbriar throughout the entire process. She could ask for an exception, but would rather comply with the planning requirements. She mentioned that the North Sycamore Specific Plan requires 15,000 square foot lots, and she could meet that requirement. She noted that she and her husband cannot afford an expensive gamble and any certainty that Council could provide would be appreciated. If Council were to uphold the Planning Commission's decision, it would make the processing of their subdivision much easier. Betty Moreira, 558 Sycamore Road, believed that the property had improved since the Hattcers had purchased it. Prior to that, a barn was built, which is located about 5 feet from her fence line and is an eyesore. If the Hafkers were allowed to subdivide the extra lot, the barn would be removed and make the property more aesthetically appealing. She would rather see a single story house located in this location, which would be an Pleasanton City Council 25 02/17/04 Minutes