Laserfiche WebLink
E. Are the residential building designs, colors and materials, and heights acceptable? <br /> The Commission, in general, found the proposed designs are acceptable. The <br /> Commission agreed with staffs recommendation that additional architectural elements, <br /> such as exposed rafter tails, window planter boxes, wrought-iron detailing, stucco finish, <br /> etc. be added. The Commission also commented that architectural details are needed <br /> around some of the garage areas and requested a color/material board. <br /> F. What additional information do you need the applicant to come back with? <br /> The Planning Commission requested the following items be submitted and/or addressed in <br /> the formal application: <br /> a A visual analysis and a color palette. <br /> a More outreach with the residents to get their comments. <br /> a Mature trees should be added to the visual analysis to show what it would look like fully <br /> developed In addition, provide growth intervals of three years, five years and 10 years. <br /> a If there have been any academic studies that looked at the correlation of an increase in <br /> affordable or high-density housing and an increase in crime rate. <br /> a School district's projection report on number of students that may be enrolled in schools <br /> from the proposed development. <br /> January 22, 2014 Planning Commission Work Session <br /> The Planning Commission reviewed the revisions from the applicant based on the comments <br /> from the previous work session. The Commission provided the following comments. <br /> 1. Is the new location of the pool and other amenities, and access from West Las Positas <br /> Boulevard acceptable? <br /> The Commission found that the revised location of the pool and other amenities was <br /> satisfactory, and the access from West Las Positas Boulevard was acceptable. <br /> 2. Is the revised proposal for massing at the rear of the site with two- and three-story building <br /> combinations acceptable? <br /> One commissioner thought it was a good thing that the Arroyo side has two stories; the <br /> other two commissioners commented on the volume of roof when viewing Buildings C and <br /> D from the south and across the Arroyo. These two commissioners wanted to see <br /> additional visuals of Buildings C and D when viewed from the south side including Buildings <br /> A and B in the background. The Commission would like to see some shadows and <br /> variations in the roof. The Commission agreed to let the applicant decide if they want to <br /> erect story poles. <br /> PUD-103/Summerhill Apartment Communities Planning Commission <br /> Page 4 of 34 <br />