My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
17
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
041508
>
17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/10/2008 1:39:56 PM
Creation date
4/10/2008 1:39:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
4/15/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
DOCUMENT NO
17
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
Site Layout <br />The long and narrow configuration of the site has imposed some constraints in site <br />development. However, the applicant has proposed a development that is compatible <br />with the neighborhood and creates a relationship between the proposed project and the <br />existing neighborhood by orienting the end units towards the public streets. Staff has <br />worked with the applicant to create a plan with both common and private open space <br />areas that provide adequate vehicular and pedestrian access as well as resident and <br />visitor parking exceeding normal code requirements. Staff believes that the proposed <br />PUD development standards are appropriate for the type and density of the project and <br />will enable the project to fit with the surrounding neighborhood. <br />If the PUD is approved by the City Council, <br />for a tentative map to subdivide the propE <br />common parcel. <br />the applicants will follow with an application <br />rty into 11 separate parcels, including one <br />Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 5) for additional <br />information and details of the project such as the site plan, architectural design, <br />landscaping, on-site amenities, and green building measures. <br />Neighborhood Meetings <br />The proposed project has had public outreach coordinated by the applicant and City <br />staff. The applicant has independently conducted various outreach efforts, including a <br />neighborhood meeting requesting input from the neighbors. Staff has also conducted a <br />neighborhood meeting and responded to concerns raised at the meeting. <br />On January 24, 2008, staff held a neighborhood meeting. Six neighbors attended the <br />meeting and provided comments on the following issues: <br />o Existing traffic <br />o Guest parking <br />o Proposed building elevations <br />Traffic <br />The residents in the neighborhood raised the concerns that Vineyard Avenue is <br />impacted by traffic volumes and speed. They indicated that Vine Street has been used <br />as a speed way by many motorists and that the proposed development, with an <br />entrance/exit to Vine Street, would worsen the current situation. Some wanted the <br />proposed entrance/exit on Vine Street removed. <br />The Traffic Engineer initially recommended that Vine Street be the only entrance/exit for <br />the development in order to control vehicular access point onto Vineyard Avenue. <br />Follow-up review of the on-site circulation led to a recommendation of a two-way <br />driveway for the development that would provide access to both Vineyard Avenue and <br />Vine Street. <br />In terms of traffic volume, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers standard, <br />the trip generation rate for acondominium/townhouse project has a 0.66 AM rate and a <br />Page 6 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.