My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
08 ATTACHMENTS 4-10
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2010
>
020210
>
08 ATTACHMENTS 4-10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2010 4:43:42 PM
Creation date
1/28/2010 2:29:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
2/2/2010
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
08 ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ATTACHMENT 5 <br /> PUD -75 /PSPA -3, Robert Wentworth <br /> Work Session to consider an amendment to the Happy Valley Specific Plan to <br /> rezone an approximately 6.13 -acre parcel from the PUD -SRDR (Planned Unit <br /> Development Semi -Rural Density Residential) District to the PUD -LDR (Planned <br /> Unit Development Low Density Residential) District and for a development plan <br /> for six single family residential parcels at 1157 Happy Valley Road. <br /> Ms. Amos presented the staff report and described the scope, layout, and key elements <br /> of the project. <br /> Commissioner Olson inquired whether the project had six lots. Ms. Amos said yes and <br /> added that the Specific Plan only allows three. <br /> Commissioner Olson referred to the map and inquired why the project does not meet <br /> the Specific Plan. Ms. Amos replied that as proposed, the six lots would not meet the <br /> one -acre minimum lot size required, and with the additional three lots, the allocation for <br /> the density would be higher than that currently outlined in the Specific Plan. <br /> Commissioner Olson noted that Lots 2 through 5 are less than one acre. He recalled <br /> that the Commission had previously looked at the entire project parcel and had two <br /> acres per lot, thereby meeting the Specific Plan and including an excess property. He <br /> inquired if something similar was being done in this case. <br /> Ms. Decker replied that the difference between the two projects essentially is that the <br /> last project already had the Happy Valley Specific Plan allocation of five dwelling units <br /> or five lots and met the density through the General Plan and the overlaying documents. <br /> She noted that in this case, General Plan and Happy Valley Specific Plan amendments <br /> would be required to change the density. <br /> Ms. Decker stated that when this project was before the Commission earlier, the <br /> Commission asked why the Commission would support this project and what would be <br /> beneficial to the project. She continued that the discussion led to how many units there <br /> were within the Specific Plan and if there were adequate allocations to increase this <br /> project by three to four lots. She noted that during that discussion, the Commission felt <br /> that there was some concern in modifying the Specific Plan, but recognizes that the <br /> Specific Plan area to date has not been built out by other projects that have come <br /> forward earlier. She added that staff had discussed with the Commission the <br /> opportunity that existed to increase the density on this site. <br /> Ms. Decker noted that staff is returning the item back to the Commission because it had <br /> three Commissioners present in the previous discussion and the applicants modified <br /> their plans according to the comments received then. She stated that staff is bringing <br /> back the project for consideration by a full Commission and is requesting direction, as <br /> outlined in the seven questions on pages 9 -10 of the staff report, regarding whether or <br /> not there is support for General Plan and Specific Plan amendments, and whether or <br /> not it is reasonable to rezone rom the existing zoning to a PUD. She noted that some <br /> EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 14, 2009 Page 1 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.