My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
07
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2022
>
021522
>
07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/10/2022 9:19:48 AM
Creation date
2/10/2022 9:17:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
2/15/2022
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Landscape <br />The proposed landscape plan for the lot includes a mix of native and non-native plant species <br />with low water use requirements. The project proposal also includes fencing to enclose the yard <br />area. Overall, staff finds the proposed planting and fencing plan acceptable. The landscape and <br />fencing plans are included in Exhibit B. <br />Figure 7: Proposed Landscape Plan <br />;Z ... MR NEON a noun 0 <br />MEN M10112"s <br />■■r :■■■■ngo 1:i: ■::: <br />-1 MEMO <br />r:w• !�! fa■. ya Bonn <br />r■1.0013 <br />■!■■1■1r1■IMMEMAMME <br />: <br />�µ �f i!■■ioii:IMSENUM <br />i :! !■ RRRIMMMIII 0000! 0000 <br />CJI b"z. 00!00■■■■■■■1 ! an ■■ iii ■rY■� <br />1rrrM■■■■w <br />OWNER <br />!1■r..11r w i ■ 11:1w1 fw l■ ■■■ <br />0000000.1..1 :i-.10; �o i 0000■■■ 0000 <br />.!■■■■■1■■ lwiiiiiii�l■ 71 ::::::■r1:: M. <br />y i <br />_.-__.___I ::■: ,00.00■. <br />Lg.■■� gga <br />0000■■::/.: W■■■.11r <br />0021■■■■■ <br />� Vii:::::ate:i::s:� r� rr ■MAE no <br />�.��■■■I■ilI1W■■1111111■lt ■1■11111■■I ■ <br />PROJECT SITE ALTERNATIVES <br />As outlined in the above analysis, staff believes the projects density, development standards, <br />architecture, site design, and landscaping, as proposed and conditioned, would be compatible <br />with the other homes in the vicinity and not create adverse impacts, and recommends the <br />Planning Commission recommend approval of the project to the City Council as proposed and <br />conditioned. However, alternatives to the proposal which could be considered by the Planning <br />Commission include-. <br />1. Recommend denial of the project to the City Council; or <br />2. Recommend approval of the PUD development plan with modifications. The Planning <br />Commission could recommend approval of the project with modifications to the <br />development standards, architecture, landscaping, or other site improvement changes. <br />Since staff believes the project will not adversely impact any properties or the surrounding <br />area, and the project has been designed to be compatible with the existing homes in the <br />neighborhood, staff recommends neither of the two project alternatives above be pursued. <br />PUD -144, 3747 Trenery Drive <br />Planning Commission <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.