PC-2019-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. PC-2019-05 Page Two 1. Whether the proposed development plan is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project, as conditioned, meets all applicable City standards concerning public health, safety, and welfare. The project will not generate volumes of traffic that cannot be accommodated by existing City streets and intersections in the area. The proposed residence will be designed to meet the requirements of the California Building Code, California Fire Code, and other applicable codes. As such, the Commission concludes this finding can be made. 2. Whether the proposed development plan is consistent with the Pleasanton General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed development includes the construction of one new home and the retention of one existing home on an approximately 1.33-acre lot. The Planning Commission finds the proposed density conforms to the General Plan Low Density Residential land use designation with a maximum of two dwelling units per gross developable acre. The proposed project promotes General Plan Programs and Policies encouraging new housing to be developed on infill sites and encouraging the preservation of the existing housing stock. In addition to the General Plan, the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the North Sycamore Specific plan (NSSP). There is no Planned Unit Development plan for the subject lot, but the NSSP details general guidelines that the subject lot should follow. The proposal is consistent with the guidelines including setbacks, density, landscaping, and character of the subject lot. The NSSP notes development should correspond generally to the Agricultural (A) district. While deviating slightly in terms of height and fence style, the Commission finds the intent of the Specific Plan is still met. The proposed height of the residence is approximately 31-feet 3-inches which is slightly taller than the 30-feet in the A-district requirements. However, given its large proposed setbacks, extensive landscaping, and proposed building design the additional height is largely mitigated and the scale meets the intent of the A-district. Additionally, the proposed fencing along Sycamore is 1-foot taller than the guidelines call for (5-feet instead of 4-feet). This is largely due to Building Codes and the requirement for additional fencing around the pool that may conflict with large oak trees on the property if the 4-foot height is maintained. The fence style and design meets the intent of the guidelines and would not conflict with the neighborhood. As such, the Commission concludes that this finding can be made. placed behind existing parapet walls or other existing screening elements, the Community Development Director may approve facade-mounted {00032392;5} page 27/28 concrete, composite or similar pole; or (B) a cable shroud or conduit mounted as flush to the pole as possible if on a wood pole or other pole {00032392;5} page 25/28 enclosure diameter shall not exceed sixteen (16) inches. All antennas, whether {00032392;5} page 24 /28 page 18 /28 2392;5} page 17 /28 } page 16 /28 tions incorporated into this approval, all {00032392;5} page 15 /28 page 6/28 le report(s), adjoining deeds, and underlying recorded maps to the Director of Engineering/City Engineer, prior to submittal of the first plan Vesting Tentative Map 8483 Planning Commission Page 4 of 5