PC 012214 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Giffin stated that from the top view and without the carports, it would be relatively similar to what Chamberlain has now: one is in front of the building staring at the front of another building. He noted that now, it is essentially 50 feet off of that nice separation, and one is suddenly looking at the rear end of the property instead of the front. He pointed that that it makes '/< of their building suddenly undesirable, more difficult to lease, and more difficult to retain tenants. He indicated that they had requested a wrought -iron fence simply to try and prevent cross traffic; they are not looking for a visual barrier but for a nice openness, a look at these great attractive buildings. Mr. Giffin requested that the Commission hold Summerhill to the Design Guidelines that were developed for this reason and not allow structures within that 50 -foot setback area. He indicated that the impact to their tenants is great and would have a significant effect on their ability to retain tenants and the rents that they get for their property. Mr. Giffin stated that the only other thing he wants to say is that he was very happy with the detailing on the garages at the entrance to West Las Positas Boulevard, where the simulation focuses on one of the buildings that does not have garages. He indicated that the garages to the right, to the south of their project, also directly face Chamberlain, and he requested that they have similar detailing to the garages to the front of the project so they are also attractive and do not appear to be kind of the back of the development Karen Ellgas, a Parkside resident, stated that they formed a committee and five members of Parkside will be speaking. She indicated that tagging onto what Mr. Natsch mentioned earlier, they have listed 14 items that were a concern to the neighbors, in order of importance, some of which have already been addressed and which has been very encouraging: 14. Assess the availability of neighborhood parks for the unit residents. Pleasanton has a neighborhood park philosophy; where would the neighborhood park be for this particular development? 13. Location of the dumpsters, which has been addressed. 12. Balconies, which has been addressed. 11 No dogs permitted in the residential units. There is an issue with that many potential animals on that site and the problems that would arise from that. 10. The traffic impact of the development. There surely are traffic impact studies for that. 9. Location and elimination of the swimming pool. That has been addressed. 8. Open up the discussion on the Below- Market Rate (BMR) housing. This has been discussed. 7. Eliminate the three - bedroom units; limit the number of bedrooms to two or less. 6. Smoking ordinance. What is it for the City of Pleasanton? 5. Include underground parking in the design. That is something they would like. 4. Landscaping and hardscaping concerns. The developer seems to be working very well on this. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 22, 2014 Page 10 of 22