My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 06:013
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2006
>
SR 06:013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2006 3:34:04 PM
Creation date
1/12/2006 3:08:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
1/17/2006
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 06:013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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 />PUD CONSIDERATIONS <br /> <br />The Zoning Ordinance of the Municipal Code sets forth purposes of the Planned Unit <br />Development District and "considerations" to be addressed when reviewing a PUD development <br />plan. Please see the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 15) for an analysis of these <br />considerations: <br /> <br />I. Whether the plan is in the best interest of the public health, safety and general welfare. <br />2. Whether the plan is consistent with the City's General Plan. <br />3. Whether the plan is compatible with previously developed properties in the vicinity and <br />the natural, topographic features of the site. <br />4. Whether the grading takes into account environmental characteristics and is designed in <br />keeping with the best engineering practices to avoid erosion, slides, or flooding to have as <br />minimal an effect upon the environment as possible. <br />5. Whether streets and buildings have been designed and located to complement the natural <br />terrain and landscape. <br />6. Whether adequate public safety measures have been incorporated into the design of the <br />plan. <br />7. Whether the plan conforms to the purposes of the PUD District. <br /> <br />Two additional findings were made by the Planning Commission related to the consideration <br />related to consistency with the General Plan. As noted in the above Planning Commission <br />recommendation, staff recommends the City Council also include those considerations: <br /> <br />8. The reduction in density from the 18 units identified in the Housing Element to II units <br />is consistent with the adopted General Plan, including the Housing Element, as set forth <br />in the staff report. The City is currently considering parcels for allowing or increasing <br />residential densities as part of the General Plan Update. Other areas may allow greater <br />densities which, in turn, could support additional affordable housing, which would be <br />consistent with the City's General Plan and Housing Element, particularly in the light of <br />the voter-imposed housing cap. <br />9. With the ongoing General Plan Update, sufficient additional, adequate, and available <br />alternative sites are being identified to keep the City's overall number of housing units <br />consistent with the Housing Element and regional housing need allocation. <br /> <br />FISCAL IMPACT <br /> <br />The proposed project is an infill development within the Rose Avenue development area and <br />will be connecting to existing infrastructure. The applicant will be upsizing the existing <br />infrastructure as required in anticipation of the development of the Alteri parcel. The applicant <br />will also be providing all additional site improvements related to the development. The City will <br /> <br />SR 06:013 <br />Page 14 of 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.