18 ATTACHMENT 5 - Laserfiche WebLink

The e-mail from the Mr. and Mrs. Roberts was received on April 13, 2008 and expresses concern for increased traffic, future two-story homes being built, impacts to the existing tree, blocking of the skyline, and parking concerns. The e-mail from Mr. Robb Carey (not related to the applicant) was received on April 14, 2008 and expresses concern over the historic legacy of the existing homes. Staff has explained to both parties that the existing structures are to remain and that the development standards would provide the regulations for future development on the site. The retention of the existing structures seems to address Mr. Carey's concerns over the historic nature of the existing homes and The Robert's concerns for increased traffic. The conditions of approval also require that the future development be reviewed through the Design Review process and that any future development be in scale and keeping with the neighborhood. Lastly, the conditions of approval require a cost analysis for restoration to be done to determine the appropriateness of not retaining the existing structures. Staff feels that this is the best approach to retaining the existing structures while acknowledging their limited longevity. Staff has provided development standards to guide the future development of these proposed lots. The existing homes of The Roberts' development (PUD-91-9) are limited in their ability for future construction per Condition No. 5 of PUD-91-9. There is a distinct difference between that project and the proposed project, though the parcel sizes are similar; PUD-91-9 created smaller parcels than the ones that are being proposed with this application. Thus, a condition of approval for that PUD to prohibit future additions seems appropriate, whereas, the proposed lot sizes and development standards for this project demonstrate that there is sufficient parcel size to accommodate both future additions and potential two-story design options. Therefore, staff feels that it would be inappropriate for these lots to be prohibited from having future additions. The concerns of impacts to the existing trees and the blocking of the skyline are not able to be addressed until such time an application for new construction is applied for. The proposed project does not result in any impacts to the existing trees or blocking of the skyline beyond what already exists. Future development will be reviewed for any tree impacts and the surrounding neighbors will be notified of any proposed project. Parking concerns have been addressed with the requirement for the applicant to provide the on-site parking spaces where currently none exist. Staff feels that the proposed project actually improves the current parking situation. Neither party came to view the plans for the proposed project prior to the publishing of this report. FINDINGS The Pleasanton Municipal Code sets forth the purposes of the Planned Unit Development District and the considerations to be addressed in reviewing a PUD development plan proposal. The Planning Commission must find that the proposed PUD development plan Item S. a., PUD-73, Maestas and Carey Page 9 of 12 Planning Commission