SR 06:060 - Laserfiche WebLink

2. Find that the proposed PUD Development Plan is consistent with the General Plan and the purposes of the PUD Ordinance; 3. Make the Planned Unit Development findings as identified in the attached Planning Commission staff report; and 4. Introduce the draft ordinance approving Case PUD-49 for a rezoning of2.76 acres from RM-4,OOO (Multiple-Family Residential) District to PUD-HDR (Planned Unit Development - High Density Residential) District and for Development Plan approval for a forty-five (45)-unit residential condominium development as shown on Exhibit A, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B. SUMMARY: Staff finds that the proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Pleasanton, is consistent with the General Plan and Housing Element, and will provide 45 new ownership opportunities. Seven units would be dedicated for below-market-rate (BMR) housing; five units would be for low-income and two units would be for moderate-income levels. Five additional units have been designed as "affordable by design." Thus, this infill project would result in an addition of twelve units to the City's stock of affordable housing opportunities. The primary concerns of the neighborhood have been related to potential increased traffic on Vineyard Avenue and a perception of the loss of on-street parking within the neighborhood. The neighborhood residents who attended both workshops expressed support for the project, were pleased that the site would finally be develope.d, and stated that the architecture was very attractive. The original submittal to the City incorporated a small tot lot at the westerly boundary adjacent to an existing single-family residence currently occupied by a tenant. During various discussions, the tenant had concerns related to noise from children playing. The tot lot was removed to mitigate both the perceived lack of parking by adding on-site parking in that location and noise impacts within the neighborhood. The Planning Commission considered these concerns and determined that it was more important to provide a small outdoor area in the development where families would be able to take their young children to that would be on site. Therefore, the Planning Commission amended the conditions requiring the tot lot be re-instated at the original location. (Please refer to the detailed discussion of the Planning Commission action below). Staff believes that the conditions of approval adequately address the issues raised by the surrounding neighbors, adjacent property owners, and the Planning Commission. SR:06:060 Page 2