My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
7_Exhibit B
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2021
>
01-13
>
7_Exhibit B
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/6/2021 3:04:36 PM
Creation date
1/6/2021 3:04:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
1/13/2021
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
7
(Message)
Path:
\BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\AGENDA PACKETS\2020 - PRESENT\2021\01-13
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
Online Survey Questions EXHIBIT B <br /> Weblink: https://forms.gle/KLByuggb2htKD8wQA <br /> SITE #1 - 730 Peters Avenue <br /> Approximately 10 unit/acre project providing three detached homes on a downtown infill site; the <br /> site configuration illustrates how placement and location of parking can impact the appearance <br /> of the project from the street. <br /> Google Street View - 730 Peters Avenue <br /> https://goo.gl/maps/y3TuMF2P5mH5XgVQA <br /> 1A. Do you feel single car driveways would be more appropriate for narrow parcels in the <br /> downtown area? (Please review the following images of the two-car driveway at 730 Peters <br /> Avenue and the development immediately across Peters Avenue) <br /> - Single Car <br /> - Double driveway <br /> - Undecided <br /> 1 B. Which elements do you feel were most successful in this project? Provide an explanation or <br /> brief notes if possible. <br /> 1C. Do you think this project fits in with the surrounding neighborhood? Why or why not? <br /> 1 D. Which elements do you feel were least successful and why? Provide an explanation or brief <br /> notes if possible. <br /> SITE #2 - 536 St John Street <br /> Approximately 15 unit/acre development consisting of 11 semi-detached homes <br /> Google Street View - 536 St John Street <br /> https://goo.gl/maps/7obyL4fNd4FTMQMQ6 <br /> 2A. Do you like the utilization and configuration of the alley at this site? <br /> - Yes <br /> No <br /> - No opinion <br /> 2B. Which elements do you feel were most successful in this project? Provide an explanation or <br /> brief notes if possible. <br /> 2C. Which elements do you feel were least successful and why? Provide an explanation or brief <br /> notes if possible. <br /> SITE #3 - Irby Ranch <br /> Approximately 8-unit-per-acre development including 87 homes and an approximately 19-unit- <br /> per-acre 31-unit supportive multifamily housing development. <br /> 3A. Would you like to live in a home on an alley facing a garage on the opposite side of your <br /> street? <br /> - Yes, homes can be located on alleys <br /> - No, I'd prefer homes face other homes <br /> 1 <br />e Format) <br /> In the following example related to site planning, the existing Housing DG encourage streets, <br /> alleys, and paseos of a subject project to connect not only internally but also to adjacent <br /> streets and neighboring developments. <br /> The potential revision to this language is, however, written also as a guideline (not a standard) <br /> since connectivity to adjacent properties or neighboring developments may or may not feasible <br /> on each project. Therefore, while quantifiable standards for residential development will be <br /> incorporated into the objective standards, staff also expects that guidelines will also be <br /> incorporated to reflect best practices and serve as design guidance for a project where it is not <br /> possible or practical to establish a quantifiable objective standard. <br /> Existing Housing DG: <br /> Al.d Streets, alleys and paseos should not only connect internally but also be <br /> publicly accessible and connect to adjacent streets and neighboring <br /> development. <br /> P20-0989, Objective Design Standards Planning Commission <br /> 9 of 10 <br />Design Standards Planning Commission <br /> 7 of 10 <br />al facade pattern. <br /> P20-0989, Objective Design Standards Planning Commission <br /> 6 of 10 <br /> design. <br /> P20-0989, Objective Design Standards Planning Commission <br /> 5 of 10 <br />ble for SB35 streamlining. <br /> P20-0989, Objective Design Standards Planning Commission <br /> 4 of 10 <br />e +� .�,� - ` <br /> Cio < °' cit 1 �,. t- ; t+ $. <br /> 4000 <br /> park <br /> t. <br /> rr v m. ♦ k..a 'AY 4b 0f ; .t Zn 47R <br /> w, 1� �s ,,,c,,,< 7?,T`➢ �' bs, is gds [^V I' J .7.no - <br /> ..,e,iv+ y,-' >.io/ "� -.!4 �� •y rr `\-\ G, air L Jbz <br /> '`i �! '� r !I '• \\`''' b'� t'i <br /> �s < • 7 , ` P v gFtw� ' 4' `o, a • / ' iP °4. xov `yahj)ll <br /> rErA'S-A4,7„..'r ® >3[RNAI ,(. qLlib �, A 5�,j <br /> , c�I_I� BERN aL. <br /> Ora a <br /> 1:5.672 <br /> 0 0.05 0.1 „i P20-0987, Wells, CUP, 706 Main St <br /> Planning Division _ a_, , <br /> , January 4,2021 I>r. <br /> LE +j S. N <br /> 0 355 710 Feet <br />