AGENDA FULL PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

PUD-148, 2207 Martin Ave. Planning Commission 3 of 4 and/or removed. Based on this further review, and additional information submitted by the applicant, staff has revised and clarified the conditions of approval. Other revisions include removal of a specific reference to an Administrative Design Review (ADR) requirement for the current tennis court (since plans have since been provided and are considered part of the PUD approval). As for any other residential property, future property improvements would be subject to the City’s standard processes and procedures, which include ADR for elements over 10 feet in height. The amended conditions clarify that if the neighbors are unable to obtain cost-sharing for construction of a seven-foot-high fence at the property line, the condition would be invalidated. And, since the applicant has demonstrated that there are existing landscape plantings along the fence line, which they installed in recent months, there is no need to further condition the application in this manner. Note that the applicant requested, and staff supports, removal of the prohibition on outdoor lighting that was stated in the original Conditions of Approval. While no outdoor lighting is currently proposed to be installed, staff notes that outdoor lighting is common throughout the surrounding neighborhood and the city as a whole; and lighting below 10 feet in height does not require any special City approval. If lighting above 10 feet were proposed in the future, it would be subject to an ADR, which would allow for consideration of factors such as positioning, shielding and hours of operation to minimize impacts to neighbors. The revised Conditions of Approval are attached as Exhibit A. The location and design of the tennis court is not proposed to change. The proposed tennis court design and standards are proposed to meet the revised modified conditions of approval per Exhibit A. As noted above, any subsequent development on the lot, including sports court lighting, would be subject to the development standards of the R-1-40,000 District and subject to design review criteria outlined in the Pleasanton Municipal Code Chapter 18.20.010. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the revised modified conditions of approval per Exhibit A including the proposed design of the tennis court and fencing per Exhibit B. PROJECT SITE ALTERNATIVES Staff believes the proposed development standards, as proposed and conditioned, would be compatible with the other parcels in the neighborhood and not create adverse impacts, and recommends the Planning Commission affirm the conditions of approval and recommendation for approval of the PUD development plan to the City Council. However, alternatives to the proposal that could be considered by the Planning Commission include: 1. Recommend denial of the PUD development plan to the City Council. 2. Recommend approval of the PUD development plan but with modifications. 3. Approve the PUD development plan as proposed by the applicant. Staff believes the PUD development plan, as conditioned, will not adversely impact any surrounding properties or the surrounding neighborhood. Staff recommends none of the alternatives above be pursued.