06 - Laserfiche WebLink

The proposed density is above the mid -point density of one du/ac and would typically require a public amenity with development, per the General Plan. Examples of amenities include the provision of affordable housing, and dedication and/or improvement of parkland, open space, and/or trails beyond the standard requirements. However, at its public hearing on the prezoning (Ordinance No. 1709 for RZ-97-2) the City Council supported staff and Planning Commission recommendations of a density "approaching two dwelling units per acre, i.e. 1.999... du/acre" for the entire areas subject to annexation, including this site. The Planning Commission agenda report, at the time, also discussed the provision of amenities, recognizing this would be above the mid -point density. The Planning Commission and City Council concurred with staff's recommendation, at the time, that no additional amenities or benefits needed to be provided in conjunction with the density conferred, based on the following factors: 1. The average density of the area surrounding the prezoning project area is two du/ac; 2. The difference between two du/ac versus one du/ac would be approximately 33 more dwellings across the entire area. Although a substantial difference, available land designated for LDR land uses which, when averaged with these sites, would achieve the one du/ac Citywide average for this land use designation; and 3. Parkland, open space, and trails were already in place and available in the area to offset the greater number of units. These facilities included the five -acre neighborhood park at the end of Martin Avenue and the 150 -foot -wide buffer area located between Martin Avenue and the gravel quarry. Furthermore, the analysis concluded affordable housing, which is recommend by the General Plan, was not feasible with large -lot, single-family developments in this area. Thus, the proposed density, although slightly above the mid -point, is consistent with that conferred at the time of the PUD-LDR zoning adopted by the City, with no additional community benefit required, consistent with the City Council's approval. Staff also notes a similar approach was taken with the virtually identical approvals of PUDs 97, 140, and 141. The proposal is in keeping with the character of the low density residential and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Policy and Programs listed below. Land Use. Residential Policy 8: Preserve and enhance the character of existing residential neighborhoods. Program 8.1: Enforce the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance and related planning ordinances to maintain the character of existing residential neighborhoods. Program 8.2: Use the City's development review procedures to minimize intrusions into existing neighborhoods. Zoning The site is zoned PUD-LDR, meaning development standards for the project would be established as part of the related PUD development plan. The zoning for the property does not currently include established development standards (e.g., setbacks, floor area ratio, parking, etc.), and would be determined as part of this application in accordance with the PUD Chapter of the Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) (discussed later in this report). P21-0132, P21-0133, & PUD -142, 3707 Trenery Drive Planning Commission 7 of 12