My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC-93-13
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
PC-93-13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2006 9:33:43 AM
Creation date
4/27/2005 1:57:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
2/24/1993
DOCUMENT NO
PC-93-13
DOCUMENT NAME
PUD-81-30-55D
NOTES
SIGNATURE PROPERTIES
NOTES 3
496-UNIT RES. DEVT: 178 SF HOMES/318 TNHOMES 52.7 ACRES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />PLANNING COMKISSION OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br />ALAMEDA COWiTY, CALXFOlUlJ:A <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. PC-93-13 <br /> <br />RESOLUTJ:ON RECOMKENDJ:NG APPROVAL OF CASE PUD-81-30-SSD, <br />THE APPLXCATXON OF SXGNATURE PROPERTXES <br /> <br />WHEREAS, signature properties has applied for development plan <br />approval to construct a 496-unit residential development <br />consisting of 178 small-lot single-family detached units <br />and 318 townhouse units on a 52.7-acre site located in <br />the Hacienda Business Park; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, zoning for the property is PUD (Planned Unit Development) <br />PUD - HDR (High Density Residential) District; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, at their duly noticed public hearing of February 24, <br />1993, the Planning Commission, after considering all <br />public testimony, relevant exhibits, and recommendations <br />of the City staff concerning this proposal, recommended <br />approval of the proposed negative declaration for Case <br />PUD-81-30-55D; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: <br /> <br />1. Whether the plan is in the best interests of the <br />public health, safety, and general welfare: <br /> <br />a. Potential traffic noise impacts from Hacienda <br />Drive, Gibraltar Drive, and stoneridge Drive on <br />exterior portions of a unit can be mitigated by a <br />combination of patio fencing and solid deck <br />railings. These treatments only would be necessary <br />on units closest to the roadways, but are not <br />required because the General Plan does not set <br />requirements on exterior noise impacts to private <br />open space areas in mUlti-family developments. <br />Interior noise levels will need to be reduced in <br />units closest to these roadways. Noise attenuation <br />measures which will reduce present and future <br />interior noise levels to those specified in the <br />General Plan have been recommended by the noise <br />assessment study and have been included as <br />conditions of approval. Common recreation areas <br />and rear yard areas of Area "c" will be shielded <br />and not be exposed to noise levels exceeding the <br />maximum permitted noise level specified in the <br />General Plan. Additional acoustic studies <br />evaluating light rail noise impacts on the single- <br />family homes will be required, and these homes <br />shall be constructed to meet General Plan interior <br />noise level requirements. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.