13 - Laserfiche WebLink

of the Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) requires a PUD Major Modification be reviewed by the Planning Commission and by the City Council. 2) Mr. Woodall stated that the proposed project violates the general purposes and specific purposes outlined for the PUD district under PMC Chapter 18.68. Response: Section 18.68.110 A. of the Pleasanton Municipal Code states that the PUD development plan is intended to provide the comprehensive plan to ensure that the intent of the PUD district is implemented. Drawing from Section 18.68.20 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code, the previously approved and proposed PUD developments for the Lehman-Selway property implement the intent and purposes of the PUD district in that: a) The proposed PUD development plan displays imagination — construction of the curvilinear alignment of Cameron Avenue and public sidewalk to Martin Avenue — and variety — three models with four design treatments on 29 production lots. b) The PUD review process for the Lehman-Selway development provided developer-sponsored neighborhood meetings and City-sponsored public workshops and hearings where neighbor concerns were identified, discussed, and then resolved through project design changes or conditions of approval. c) The proposed PUD development plan accommodates changing market conditions and developer's goals with four more lots balanced with the community's desires for smaller, single-story only homes, large building setbacks and yards, and the Cameron Avenue street construction and sidewalk construction. d) The proposed PUD development plan implements the City's General Plan for the Lehman-Selway property without the discouragement of overly restrictive development standards. e) The PUD development plan enabled the City to reasonably respond to the special considerations proposed by an infill property that is the Lehman-Selway property surrounded on all sides by established neighborhoods. (Refer to item #6) on the following page.) 3) Mr. Woodall stated that the proposed project is ill-timed given present market conditions. Response: The applicant believes that the previously approved homes for this property are no longer marketable given the present economic climate, and that the market is moving towards the relatively smaller, single-story homes represented by this proposal; that the housing market will improve; and, based on this belief, proposes this development now in order to complete the entitlement and subdivision processes in time to meet the improved market. Page 10 of 16