My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
5
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2011
>
032811 Jt City-PUSD
>
5
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/23/2011 4:42:17 PM
Creation date
3/23/2011 4:42:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
3/28/2011
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
5
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP <br /> On February 8, 2011, the City Council held a Workshop to discuss the Hacienda TOD <br /> Standards and Design Guidelines and to review the Planning Commission's <br /> recommendation on this project. Listed below are those issues which require further <br /> City Council input: <br /> • Pedestrian and Bike Connections: The Planning Commission recommended a <br /> "sunset clause" be established that would eliminate the connector trail <br /> requirement along the common property line with Kaiser if an agreement with <br /> Kaiser regarding joint development of the trail was not reached by the end of <br /> 2011. Staff believes that the connecting trail is an essential piece of the <br /> pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan and recommends that if a "sunset clause" <br /> is included, some flexibility is allowed in applying it if Kaiser has indicated its <br /> willingness to work with the City on trail implementation. Staff is seeking City <br /> Council direction on this topic. <br /> • Setbacks: The Planning Commission recommended a reduction of setbacks on <br /> Willow Road, Gibraltar Drive and Hacienda Drive, if the pedestrian and bike <br /> connecting trail is required. Staff believes that the Hacienda TOD Standards and <br /> Design Guidelines as currently drafted provide sufficient discretion to the <br /> Community Development Director to consider reductions in setbacks where <br /> warranted and where consistent with the objectives of the guidelines. Staff <br /> believes community acceptance of development on these sites will be strongly <br /> influenced by the appearance of the project from the street and that the setbacks <br /> and landscaping illustrated in the guidelines provide necessary "greening" of the <br /> project. <br /> • Retail and Live/Work Space: The Planning Commission recommended 5,000 <br /> square feet, not 10,000 square feet of dedicated retail space overall, with the <br /> 5,000 square feet on Owens Drive. The Planning Commission also <br /> recommended that the live /work space requirement be retained on Owens Drive, <br /> but that retail and live /work space be a builder's option on Gibraltar Drive at <br /> Hacienda Drive. One option that has not been discussed would be to require <br /> some quantity of live /work space on Gibraltar Drive but not to require retail at this <br /> location. This would allow for future conversion to retail should the market <br /> develop for such uses. Staff supports the recommendation for 5,000 square feet <br /> of retail development and live /work space on the Owens Drive frontage and <br /> seeks City Council direction regarding requiring additional retail and live /work <br /> space on Gibraltar Drive. <br /> • Retail Depth: The Planning Commission recommended that the minimum <br /> required retail depth at corners should be 40 feet rather than 60 feet as currently <br /> stated in the guidelines. In order to attract certain larger tenants, the City's retail <br /> experts believe that there should be at least some space with 60 foot depth. <br /> Staff seeks City Council direction on this issue. <br /> • Group Usable Open Space: At least one Council member disagreed with the <br /> concept of requiring 200 square foot rather than 300 square foot of group usual <br /> open space for projects exceeding 35 dwelling units per acre and recommended <br /> a more graduated approach. Staff recommends adjusting these requirements for <br /> a more gradual reduction in the requirements as density increases; i.e. that 250 <br /> Page 3 of 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.