03 - Laserfiche WebLink

three-story building is approximately 36-feet and the maximum height of the four-story building is approximately 54-feet, 6-inches as measured from the grade of the exterior of the building to the top element of the buildings. Leasing and Fitness Buildings: In addition to the residential buildings and live/work units, there are two additional structures proposed on site: an approximately 3,570 square-foot leasing/club building and an approximately 1,680 square-foot fitness building located in the center of the property. Trail Connection: A 10-foot wide tree-lined trail that would facilitate connection of Site 2 to the Iron Horse Trail is proposed along the northwest, and east sides of the property, adjacent to the Kaiser parking lot and proposed public park. Public and Private Space: A courtyard area with decorative paving is proposed adjacent to the live/work buildings at the corner of Gibraltar Drive and Hacienda Drive. In addition to private patios or balcony space for the residences, the project includes active and passive recreation areas. The proposal also has exterior recreation areas that include a pool, kid pool, spa, cabanas, fire pit, barbeque area, a turf recreation area, and lounging areas. As proposed, the project is consistent with the Hacienda TOD Standards and Guidelines requirements for private and public open space. Planning Commission Work Session Staff presented the project to the Planning Commission at a work session on October 17, 2011. The Commission was asked six questions regarding the two sites. Those questions are noted in italics with a summary of the Commission's comments thereafter. A. Would the Planning Commission support exceptions to the Hacienda TOD Standards and Guidelines if the project were to move forward as proposed? The Commission felt that they could support exceptions to the live/work depth given the uncertainty of their viability and could support the lack of internal streets because the alley street type of design that is proposed for both sites allows for more open space. The Commission requested that the main vehicular entries of the two sites be accentuated so people know they are the entryways and requested that the applicant return with visuals of what the entries will really look like. B. Are the building designs appropriate in their physical context adjacent to large office buildings? Most of the Commissioners felt that the design for the two sites were appropriate, but requested that more consideration be given to the roof tops on Site 2. One Commissioner commented that more detailing on Site 2 should be added to reduce the "institutional" look. One Commission requested "really good" visuals when the application returns for a recommendation so that the Commissioners can get a better sense of what the project is going to look like standing on the ground and looking up. One Commissioner noted that she would have like to have seen more places where people can congregate within the complex. Page 7 of 15