Laserfiche WebLink
The document includes: <br /> • An Introduction section outlining the document's purpose, the development <br /> review process, the vision for development of the Hacienda TOD, and two <br /> framework diagrams providing context for future development and existing and <br /> future street and pedestrian improvements. <br /> • A listing of the core PUD regulations consistent with the Settlement Agreement. <br /> • Non-core standards, retail and live/work requirements, and permitted uses. <br /> • Development standards and design guidelines related to street design, site <br /> planning, building types and architectural features. <br /> • Illustrations and descriptions of six residential building types varying in density <br /> from 14 units per acre to 80 units per acre, various retail buildings, and live/work <br /> prototypes. <br /> The document includes three types of guidance to developers: Core PUD regulations, <br /> non-core standards, and guidelines. Although development project on sites 1,2 and 3 <br /> will be required to meet all the Core Standards, the City Council may exercise discretion <br /> in the application of the other development standards, if such proposals meet the intent <br /> and purpose of the standards. Some flexibility is warranted in order to comply with the <br /> guidelines where specific site circumstances would make application of the guideline <br /> infeasible, produce an undesirable outcome that is counter to the Vision, or where a <br /> creative alternative clearly promotes the intent expressed in this document. <br /> JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP <br /> On December 16, 2010, the Hacienda Task Force met in a Joint Workshop with the <br /> Planning Commission and City Council to discuss the draft document (draft minutes <br /> attached as Exhibit D). Issues raised fell broadly into three areas: items that need <br /> clarification in the draft Hacienda TOD Standards and Design Guidelines; policy issues <br /> yet to be resolved; and "bigger picture" items that need further discussion (mostly by the <br /> City Council or other entities) but that cannot be resolved by the Task Force or within <br /> the Hacienda document. <br /> Case No. PRZ-57, City of Pleasanton Planning Commission <br /> Page 3 of 9 <br />