11 ATTACHMENT 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

• Private Courtyards Private courtyard areas will be created for Lot 1, Lot 3, Lot 10, and Lot 12. IV. ANALYSIS The following analysis covers the revised 13-unit development plan and the applicant's reply to the City Council and Planning Commission comments made at the previous public hearings and work sessions. This staff report references Exhibit G, the September 15, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report, where applicable, for the detailed analyses of Architecture and Design, Demolition of the Existing Dwelling, Drainage Plan, Driveway Material, Grading Plan, House Sizes and Floor Area Ratio, Growth Management Allocations, Landscaping and Fencing, Noise Impacts on Adjacent Properties, Private Sidewalks, Site Development Standards, Site Plan, and Utilities. Conformance with the General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan The PUD rezoning and the revised PUD development plan with a density of 11.1 units per acre is consistent with tie High Density Residential (>8 du/ac) land use designation of the Pleasanton General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. The General Plan requires Low Density Residential (< 2 du/ac) and Medium Density Residential (2-8 du/ac) designated properties to provide public amenities such as the dedication of parkland or open space beyond the standard City requirements in order to exceed the midpoint densities of these land use designations. The midpoint density of the High Density Residential (>8 du/ac) land use designation is 15 du/ac and there is no public amenity requirement to exceed the midpoint density of High Density Residential designated properties. As described in the attached Planning Commission staff report, the proposal will also further the General Plan Land Use Element Program 4.1, Policy 7, Policy 9, and Program 10.1; Housing Element Goal 1, Goal 14, and Policy 2; and Downtown Specific Plan Land Use Objective 1 and Design and Beautification Goal 1. Sunlight Impacts Darell Walterson, adjacent resident at 4151 Stanley Boulevard, contacted staff after the September 15, 2010 Planning Commission hearing and voiced concern that the proposed homes would block sunlight from reaching the photovoltaic panels that are located on the roof of his detached garage. Figure 5, on the following page, copies a portion of the previous site plan showing the proposed building on then _ot 12 (now removed) and the accessory structure on Mr. Walterson's property. Mr. Walterson also questioned if there were any State laws protecting his PV panels from the proposed development. Item 6.a., PUD-82 Page 13 of 22 July 13, 2011