PC 031208 - Laserfiche WebLink

With respect to Discussion Point 2, Commissioner Olson agreed with Commissioner Narum's points about the site being consistent with the rest of the neighborhood and would support the change from PUD-A to PUD-LDR. He believed the proposed lot sizes were as good as they would get. He believed it was a sensible solution, and the argument for doing it was compelling. With respect to Discussion Point 3, Commissioner Olson would find that acceptable. With respect to Discussion Point 1, Commissioner Pearce agreed with the comments made by Commissioners Narum and Olson. Her main concern was that the homes be consistent in appearance with Sycamore Creek Way, including setbacks. She preferred that the largest lot be placed next to Lot 2 and then go down in lot size from there if the current grading allowed. She agreed with Discussion Points 2 and 3. With respect to Discussion Point 1, Commissioner Fox did not believe the Specific Plan Amendment should be approved to allow a density increase to five lots. If this application returned to the Planning Commission, she would like staff to use the SPA nomenclature in identifying the case, rather than using a PUD number. With respect to Discussion Point 2, Commissioner Fox noted that the North Sycamore Specific Plan discussed a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet and indicated that she would be amenable if the lots were graded for 15,000 square feet each. With respect to Discussion Point 3, Commissioner Fox believed the layout for the proposed PUD-A lots would be acceptable. Commissioner O'Connor was not open to changing Specific Plans for density purposes. He did not believe it was appropriate to transfer densities to other lots that did not use all of their density. He believed that the rural part of Pleasanton was designated for three lots for a reason. He could support turning the three lots on Sycamore Creek into two lots. He believed the remaining portion on Sycamore Road should remain as one lot. With respect to Discussion Point 1, Chair Blank noted that he could support a density increase under very restrictive circumstances and believed it was very important to remain consistent throughout the City. With respect to Discussion Point 2, Chair Blank believed that consistency in the lot size was subordinate to architectural consistency. It appeared to him that this issue had not been handled correctly in the beginning and did not believe the property owner should be punished for that occurrence. With respect to Discussion Point 3, Chair Blank believed the layout of the lots were generally acceptable. He strongly encouraged the property owners to spend the time and money to have high-quality visuals performed to get a sense of how the prof ect would fit into the neighborhood, what the viewscapes would be, what the landscaping would look like, and what the impact on the neighborhood would be. He would not want the homes to look too dense by design. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 12, 2008 Page 20 of 22