Laserfiche WebLink
The proposed density of 12.0 dwelling units per acre is the same density proposed at the time of <br /> the work session. Staff notes that the Planning Commission Work session staff report <br /> erroneously indicated that a General Plan Amendment would be required for the proposed <br /> density. As noted above, the General Plan Land Use Designation for the subject site was <br /> changed to High Density Residential as part of the 2002 Downtown Specific Plan. Therefore. a <br /> General Plan Amendment is not required for the project. <br /> 2. Is the proposed site plan acceptable? Are the proposed setbacks acceptable? <br /> Four Commissioners believed the general site plan layout was acceptable while one <br /> Commissioner did not like the site plan. Some of the Commissioners wanted the rear yard <br /> setbacks on the east side of the-project site increased (one Commissioner mentioned at least a 10 <br /> foot setback) while one Commissioner requested the rear setbacks be increased for the entire <br /> project. <br /> Five-foot rear yard setbacks wet indicated on the preliminary plan provided at the work <br /> session. The current application proposes rear yard setbacks of 9 ft. 10 in. or 10 ft. along the <br /> eastern boundary (Lot 8 has a minimum 91/4 ft. eastern side yard setback), 7 ft. or 10 ft. along the <br /> northern boundary, and between 5 ft. to 7 ft. 10 in.. along the western boundary. The rear yard <br /> setbacks noted above exclude a two-foot fireplace encroachment. Staff notes that the Pleasanton <br /> Municipal Code normally allows up to a four-loot encroachment into the rear yard setback for <br /> fireplaces. <br /> 3. Is the guest parking acceptable? <br /> No on-site guest parking was included on the preliminary plan provided at the work session. All <br /> Commissioners believed that on-site guest parking should be included in the project, but a <br /> specific number was not provided. The current application includes five on-site guest parking <br /> spaces. <br /> 4. Is the proposed open spcce area for the development and for each home acceptable? <br /> Some Commissioners stated that common open space areas were not necessary for this <br /> development while other Commissioners felt it should be provided or be provided if feasible <br /> after addressing other comments such as adding guest parking and increasing the rear setbacks. <br /> Some Commissioners wanted an on-site tot lot provided while other Commissioners did not <br /> believe a tot lot was necessary. <br /> The current application does not include a tot lot or common open space area. <br /> PUD-82 Page 3 September 15, 2010 <br />