My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
10 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
110408
>
10 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/29/2008 11:40:04 AM
Creation date
10/29/2008 11:34:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
11/4/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
10 ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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
quality material whenever possible and notably on the street fronts, to consider the use of <br />true-divided-light windows instead of the proposed windows, to provide garages for all <br />units in place of the proposed carports, provide increased landscaping area wherever <br />possible, and that they work with the City to retain the existing trees. The PHA also <br />offered support for the project embracing the character of the neighborhood, the designs <br />of the new homes maintaining a traditional look, the proposed color palate, the proposal <br />for single-family homes in this neighborhood, and the choice of architecture. <br />The comments from the owners and residents were generally in favor of the proposed <br />project and the retention of the existing homes. The owner of 4676 Augustine Street <br />indicated that they would like to develop in the future as well and wanted to verify that <br />sewer capacity would be available. There was only one comment received in objection to <br />the project. The tenant of 4676 Augustine Street expressed concerns in regards to the <br />existing parking and traffic problems for the neighborhood, the likelihood that the <br />garages will be used for storage and not parking, the unsightly overhead wires, and <br />increased noise. <br />FINDINGS <br />The Pleasanton Municipal Code sets forth the purposes of the Planned Unit Development <br />District and the considerations to be addressed in reviewing a PUD development plan <br />proposal. The Planning Commission must find that the proposed PUD development plan <br />conforms to the purposes of the PUD District, as listed below, before making its <br />recommendation to the City Council. <br />1. The proposed development is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and <br />general welfare. <br />The proposed development, as conditioned, meets all applicable City standards <br />concerning public health, safety, and welfare including vehicle access, geologic and <br />flood hazards. The proposed development involves the construction of three new <br />residences, a private access drive, and related project improvements, such as: <br />adequate storm drain, sanitary sewer, water service, and utilities sufficient to serve the <br />development. Public street access is provided to all structures for police, fire, and <br />other emergency response vehicles. This finding can therefore be made. <br />2. The proposed development is consistent with the Pleasanton General Plan. <br />The proposed project's land use conforms to the "High Density Residential" land use <br />designation for the project site. The General Plan defines High Density Residential as <br />greater than eight dwelling units per acre. The proposed project, with six units on <br />approximately .51 acres, conforms to this designation. The project site is located in <br />the Downtown Specific Plan area and does conform to all programs and policies <br />outlined in the Downtown Specific Plan. This finding can therefore be made. <br />Ilem 6. a., PUD-72, Raney Page I ] of 13 Planning Commission <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.