My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 052213
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
PC 052213
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:46:01 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 3:39:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/22/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
projects and neo- traditional type plans that are based on the old grid system which <br />dispersed traffic so that particular areas of a neighborhood do not bear most of the <br />burden of traffic. He noted that in this case, the grid itself is self contained and does not <br />change the traffic patterns of cars leaving the site because Busch Road and Boulder <br />Street would take that off under all scenarios. He indicated that some people prefer <br />curvilinear to the grid patterns because the latter has straight streets and looks <br />monotonous, but others think that the grid system now may be more of what is <br />happening today, and more of that is coming back. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that the Alternatives evolved toward a curvilinear pattern at the request <br />of the Task Force; it was not necessarily staffs first choice but there was a consensus <br />that that was what the Task Force wanted and thought it felt more like the rest of the <br />town. <br />Commissioner Olson commented that the City does have a bunch of curvy streets. <br />Commissioner Posson asked Mr. Rasmussen how "major" is defined in the reference <br />made to "major open space buffer" along the railroad track. He expressed concern <br />about noise from the railroad tracks and its impact on the neighborhood. <br />Mr. Rasmussen replied that "major" has not yet been defined and indicated that there <br />will be a significant need for setbacks from the tracks, combined with berming, to solve <br />that noise problem. He noted that Alternative 2 did not maintain the grid system; the <br />others tended to be variations from this and over time evolved out of this. <br />Commissioner Posson noted that Glen Cove and Ironwood are the two closest <br />residential areas, with Ironwood being adjacent to the project site and Glen Cove being <br />an older neighborhood farther up Valley Avenue. He inquired which of the Alternatives <br />is closest to the density and mix, in the case of Ironwood, of these two neighborhoods <br />Mr. Rasmussen replied that the density in Alternative 1 is around four units per acre, <br />and referred to staff for the density of Ironwood. <br />Ms. Stern replied that the density in Ironwood varies among the active community, the <br />classics, the apartments, and so on, but the density of the single - family residential is <br />probably around that density. <br />Commissioner Posson inquired if the multi - family is about the same as well. <br />Mr. Rasmussen replied that the active seniors are probably eight units per acre. <br />Commissioner O'Connor inquired if the current mix of single - family versus all other <br />higher density in the City is about 25 percent to 75 percent or something like that. <br />Ms. Stern replied that the current mix is about 25- percent multi - family, including units <br />and structures of five or more units, with the rest being single - family. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 22, 2013 Page 13 of 41 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.