My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
06
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
040108
>
06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2008 1:27:20 PM
Creation date
3/26/2008 1:27:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
4/1/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
06
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
0.83 PM rate per unit for a total of approximately seven morning peak hour trips and <br />eight evening peak hour trips for the project. The City Traffic Engineer has concluded <br />that the proposed 10-unit townhouse project would not create a significant traffic impact <br />or overburden the existing traffic pattern in the area. <br />Additionally, Dowling Associates, one of the City traffic consultants, created a traffic <br />model for the proposed project which collected the data for the AM and PM trip <br />distribution for both the existing trips and the trips generated by the project. In a review <br />of the collected data, the City Traffic Engineer concluded that the intersections that <br />would be included in a traffic study have recently been studied; therefore, it was <br />unnecessary to perform a separate traffic study to investigate the project traffic impact <br />at the same intersections. Given the minimal traffic impact associated with this project, <br />no traffic mitigations are required other than payment of the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). <br />Parking <br />The Parking Ordinance requires, for amultiple-family residential development, one <br />guest parking space for every seven residential units. In this case, and based on the <br />parking requirement, two guest parking spaces would be required for the proposed <br />ten-unit residential development. <br />Many properties on the north side of Vineyard Avenue between First Street and Stanley <br />Boulevard have ahigh-density zoning designation. As such, the neighbors have <br />expressed dissatisfaction that curbside parking in the front of their homes have been <br />impacted by the residents in the apartment complexes due to the lack of adequate <br />on-site parking provided by the existing developments. The neighbors wanted <br />additional guest parking provided. <br />In response to the residents' comments on guest parking spaces, the applicant added <br />an additional parking space near Vineyard Avenue. As such, a total of five guest <br />parking spaces would be provided for this ten-unit townhouse development -four of <br />which are located in the common area and the fifth near Vineyard Avenue. Therefore, <br />the proposed number of guest parking spaces exceeds what is required by Code. <br />Staff notes that the parking enforcement would be the responsibility of the homeowners <br />association and/or the management company for the project. The enforcement <br />measures would be addressed in the CC&R's. <br />Building Elevations <br />In response to the comments raised at the neighborhood meeting, the applicants have <br />revised the designs to provide more interest and articulation on the rear elevations. The <br />revised rear elevation shows gable roofs and wall articulations that mimic the front <br />elevations. This revised elevation was well received by the concerned party. <br />Page 7 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.