My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
17 ATTACHMENT 05
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
041508
>
17 ATTACHMENT 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/10/2008 1:53:12 PM
Creation date
4/10/2008 1:53:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
4/15/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
DOCUMENT NO
17 ATTACHMENT 05
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
PUBLIC COMMENTS <br />Staff has received two written comments from surrounding neighbors. <br />Mr. David Morris, 324 Adams Way, addressed concerns of view blocking and parking. Susan <br />Alimonti on Carnation Court expressed concerns on parking and traffic. Concerns from both <br />neighbors were addressed in the "Analysis" section of the staff report. <br />Neighborhood Meeting <br />Staff hosted a neighborhood meeting at the Regalia House at Kottinger Village Community Park <br />on January 24, 2008. The main concerns from the residents focused traffic and parking. The <br />neighbors indicated that they have been experiencing in recent years that traffic congestion <br />situation has worsened as new residential developments have taken place. They are concerned <br />that the proposed development would further impact the already congested streets. Additionally, <br />Vineyard Avenue between First and Stanley is concentrated with high-density residential <br />complexes and that many of them do not appear to provide adequate on-site parking as the <br />tenants take street parking as their own. The residents are concerned that the proposed two-car <br />garage for each unit may not satisfy residents with more than two vehicles, which has become a <br />more common situation. As a result, these residents would have to park the extra vehicles on the <br />streets, which would further impact the already inadequate on-street parking. <br />PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS <br />The Pleasanton Municipal Code sets forth the purposes of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) <br />District and the considerations to be addressed in reviewing a PUD development plan proposal. <br />The Planning Commission must make the following findings that the proposed PUD <br />development plan conforms to the purposes of the PUD District, before making its <br />recommendation. <br />1. Whether the proposed development is in the best interest of the public health, <br />safety, and general welfare. <br />As conditioned, the proposed development would meet City standards for street <br />improvements and utility design. Adequate storm drain, sanitary sewer, and water <br />service utilities are present in the area surrounding the development and are sufficient to <br />serve the proposed development. All on-site infrastructure shall be installed by the <br />project developer with connections to municipal systems in order to serve the site. On- <br />Case No. PUD-71 Planning Commission <br />Page - 12 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.