SR 06:159 - Laserfiche WebLink

. What does not appear to have been considered is to make the upper area a separate cul-de-sac with the road running directly behind the Lloyd property. That would put more separation between their home and whatever home is behind them, but would turn the EVA into a cul-de-sac. Since this idea was never discussed with the Lloyd family or the neighborhood, it should be put on the table. It would preserve the num- ber of sites the Hatsushis want, and would create better view lots for those homes be- cause their back yards would be directly above the drop off into the rest of the Hatsu- shi property. . Any home that is to be built on the currently defined Lot 13 is kept to a single-story, 3,200 square feet or less, and the peak height is not allowed to be more than 8 feet above the current elevation of the Lloyd lot. (Staff notes that this would equal a maximum building height of 16 feet.) Also, the home on Lot should be positioned as far east and south as legally allowed on that lot. . All of the "triangle" or the portion south of the EVA be sold to my wife and 1. 9. Scott Summerfield (2934 Victoria Meadow Court) . No construction traffic on the EVA to Montevino Drive. Montevino Drive is a resi- dential street with a blind curve and is inappropriate for construction vehicles. . Provide construction access from Vineyard Avenue. Do not allow building permits until access is provided to Vineyard Avenue. The response letters from Ralph Hughes to several of these neighbors are attached. As of the writing of this staff report, staff has not received any additional verbal or written comments per- taining to this proposal. Staff notes that before the Planning Commission's work session, the applicants held their own neighborhood meetings on November 19, 200S and December 3, 200S. Project plans and the visual analyses were present. VII. PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS The Pleasanton Municipal Code sets forth the purposes ofthe Planned Unit Development (PUD) District and the considerations to be addressed in reviewing a PUD development plan proposal. The Planning Commission must make the following findings that the proposed PUD develop- ment plan conforms to the purposes of the PUD District, before making its recommendation. 1. Whether the proposed development plan is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare: The proposed project as designed and conditioned meets all applicable City standards concerning public health, safety, and welfare, e.g., vehicle access, geologic hazards (new development not within a special studies zone), and flood hazards. Full public streets and water, storm, and sanitary sewer lines are present to serve the proposed lots on this site. Staff, therefore, believes that this finding can be made. Item 6.b., PUD-99-14 Page 20 of 24 April 26, 2006