Laserfiche WebLink
Residential Design <br /> <br />Issue~ <br /> <br />Are design guidelines adequate to achieve desired neo-traditional <br />neighborhoods, and are small-lot standards antithetical to achieving <br />satisfactory neighborhood design goals? <br /> <br />Proposed Project: Development Standards and Design Guidelines both mandate and <br /> permit various subdivision/architectural design solutions for future residential <br /> development. <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />Require x % single-family units to be alley-based. <br />Require deep-setback street-oriented garages rather than present <br />shallow-setback requirements. <br />Specify porch requirements, by x °A of units, and/or revise minimum <br />sizes. <br />Modify front setback (increase to "normal" Pleasanton requirements or <br />further decrease). <br />Reduce FAR's on small-lot prototypes. <br />Eliminate small-lot prototypes, requiring densities of 8 units/acre and up <br />to be in multi-family structures. <br />Allow small-lot prototypes as a City discretionary approval, not as a <br />matter of "right." <br />Amplify requirements to address fencing type and location. <br />Add text to amplify generally the neo-traditional neighborhood/house <br />design themes derived in the project. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br /> <br />The design guidelines/standards were intended to provide only sufficient <br />detail to allow administrative reviews of subsequent, discrete projects. <br />The City's discretion to review each project is the primary vehicle used to <br />ensure neo-traditional design is followed in both neighborhood and house <br />design. Amplification on agreed-upon themes is feasible. Adding specific <br />requirements may prove counter-productive by reducing flexibility. <br />Small-lot standards will achieve "ordinary street" architecture, not <br />auto-court designs, with the smallest lots requiring alleys (SL-2 and <br />SL-2.5). However, the small frontage, small side-setback options which <br />allow street-oriented garages (CY-1.5, CY-2.8, SL-3, SL-3.5, ML-4, and <br />ML-4.5) will be difficult to design without becoming auto-oriented due to <br />the dominance of driveways/garages. Townhouse/duet designs at these <br />densities may achieve a more desirable neo-traditional neighborhood <br />design. <br /> <br />Alley-based design is untested in the marketplace (causing San Francisco <br />to be opposed to mandated requirements) typically reduces achievable <br />density for a given housing prototype, and has received mixed views from <br /> <br />Substantive Issues/Alternatives Page 8 June 9, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />