2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Pros Cons Significant and enhanced landscaping along the project frontage and rear and side yards would soften the appearance and reduce visual impacts of the new home. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The Pleasanton Municipal Code Section 18.20 sets forth the criteria to be addressed in reviewing a Design Review application. These criteria are set forth in the draft Resolution included as Exhibit A, and includes preservation of natural beauty, relationship of the residence with the streetscape and surroundings, compatibility of architecture, among other criteria. As described in Exhibit A, and based on the information and analysis provided in this Agenda Report, staff recommends the Commission make the required findings to approve the project. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this application was sent to surrounding property owners and tenants within a 1,000-foot radius of the site and published in the newspaper. At the time this report was published, staff has not received any public comments. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for PUD-87-19 pursuant to the requirements of CEQA; the MND included mitigation measures which would be required to be implemented by the subject application, and which would reduce potential project impacts to a less than significant level. These measures are included as Conditions of Approval for the subject application. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION Staff finds the subject proposal is consistent with the Design Review Criteria and the PUD Design Guidelines as articulated above and in the draft Resolution, Exhibit A. Therefore, as conditioned, staff recommends the Commission approve the Design Review application. Primary Author: Megan Campbell, Associate Planner, 925-931-5610 or mcampbell(a cityofpleasantonca.gov. Reviewed/Approved By: Steve Otto, Senior Planner Ellen Clark, Planning Manager Gerry Beaudin, Director of Community Development P18-0109, 4112 Foothill Rd. Planning Commission 9 of 9 design help mitigate the building height and mass. Alternative 3 is inconsistent with the purpose of the lot and of the zoning district which both intend and permit the construction of a single family residence on this lot. The proposed project represents a reasonable development scenario for the site and as such, staff does not recommend any of the alternatives. PROS AND CONS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT Pros Cons One additional housing unit which will Adds a taller structure to the lot which will be increase the City's supply of market rate visible to the surrounding neighbors until the housing. proposed landscaping matures. One additional ADU which will increase the Creates higher demand on City services City's supply of Accessory Dwelling Units. including water, sewer, road infrastructure, and other public services and amenities. Allows appropriate development on a property zoned for a residential use. P18-0109, 4112 Foothill Rd. Planning Commission 8 of 9 ik y� `�: *. AAVa„. I I REFER TO SWT L3.w1lW �I��a41\./•n. '. .•.: .�/ I •` 1 PLANT UST.NOTES P18-0109, 4112 Foothill Rd. Planning Commission 5 of 9 PUD-I/C-O (Planned Unit Development— Industrial/Commercial and Offices) District.