My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 05:258
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2005
>
SR 05:258
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/16/2005 12:13:13 PM
Creation date
9/15/2005 4:44:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
9/20/2005
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 05:258
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
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
<br />ATfACHMENT 6 <br />PUD-37. Ron Winter <br />Application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning and development plan <br />approval for the construction of four single-family residences and two rental units at <br />520 St. John Street. Zoning for the property is RM-15 (Multiple-Family Residential) <br />District and Core Area Overlay District. <br />Ms. Decker summarized the staff report. She described the history and scope of the project and <br />noted that there had been no changes to the project by the applicant. No changes were made to <br />the staff report previously distributed to the Commission. She noted that there was adequate <br />parking in the project, and a snapshot of the site development standards for the units was <br />included on page 5 of the staff report. Staff determined that the project meets the siting, mass, <br />and height requirements ofthe Specific Plan as well as those of the design guidelines with <br />respect to roofline, materials, windows, entries, and architectural detailing. In addition, the <br />landscaping adequately softened the two-story architectural elements on the site. She displayed <br />the floor plan of the units on the overhead screen. <br />Ms. Decker advised that staff believes the PUD findings were made regarding whether the plan <br />is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare; consistency with the City's <br />General Plan; compatibility with previously developed properties in the vicinity and the natural <br />topographic features of the site; whether the grading takes environmental characteristics ofthe <br />site into account and is designed in keeping with best engineering practices to avoid erosion, <br />slides or flooding, to have a minimal effect on the environment; whether the streets and buildings <br />have been designed and located to complement the natural terrain and landscape; whether there <br />are adequate public safety measures incorporated into the plan's design; and whether the plan <br />conforms to the purposes of the PUD district. <br />Ms. Decker noted that there were two primary issues of contention with respect to this particular <br />development: parking and removal of the trees on the site. She added that nine trees would be <br />removed. She noted that the arborist's report was included in the packet and discussed the <br />details of that report. She noted that there had been a great deal of community interest regarding <br />the removal of the walnut tree; the Planning Director has discretion with respect to the removal <br />of that tree and the mitigations. In this case, staff believed that the project met the goals of the <br />Downtown Specific Plan with a nearly 2: I replacement ratio; therefore, the walnut tree itself was <br />mitigated under those circumstances. <br />Ms. Decker noted that the residents also perceived a loss of parking in the Downtown area. Staff <br />requested that a parking survey be done, which was displayed for review. The Code did not <br />provide for tandem parking, per se, but a PUD application allowed the City Council, the <br />Planning Commission, and staff to assess a project and analyze whether or not a particular <br />proposal was appropriate and whether adequate on-site parking was available to the projected <br />residents. Staff found that although the project would include tandem parking, three spaces <br />would be provided per site, meeting those criteria. When commercial properties come before the <br />City in the Downtown Specific Plan Area, in-lieu parking fees may be requested; the applicant <br />has agreed to pay in-lieu parking fees in the amount of $28,000 for this project. <br />Ms. Decker wished to correct the date of the neighborhood meeting stated in the staff report from <br />December 7, 2005 to 2004. Many of the comments reflect previous versions of the plan; the <br />front setback has since been stepped back to break up the front fa.,:ade. The number of units was <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, May 11,2005 Page I of5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.