My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
3_Exhibits E-G
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2021
>
05-26
>
3_Exhibits E-G
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/19/2021 6:01:33 PM
Creation date
5/19/2021 6:01:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
5/26/2021
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
3
(Message)
Path:
\BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\AGENDA PACKETS\2020 - PRESENT\2021\05-26
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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
Commissioner Pace stated he liked the orientation of Building 1 overlooking the mall and <br /> Buildings 2 and 3 looking at the apartments. He discussed the need for the appropriate traffic <br /> plan and retail experience. He indicated there was a way to benefit everyone living, working, <br /> and shopping in the area. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor reviewed the current proposed plans presented during the <br /> presentation and stated he was amenable to the current proposal where Building 1 is <br /> two stories and Buildings 2 and 3 are four stories. <br /> Commissioner Allen was also amenable to the current proposed plans, however, suggested <br /> Building 1 be three stories and the others be lower, if facing residential. She questioned the <br /> 50- to 100-foot setback around the perimeter and allowable 32-foot setback over time. Mr. <br /> Luchini explained that 32 feet was the setback minimum and the 50- to 100-foot setback could <br /> not be reduced below 32 feet, providing a building envelope and flexibility should 10x <br /> Genomics change their plans, though the intent was to keep the setback as presented in the <br /> current plan. Mr. Jencek stated they were trying to keep the minimum acceptable setback but <br /> wanted some flexibility as needs evolved and to allow future designers to work with the City on <br /> the appropriated design. Commissioner Allen expressed concern that a 32-foot setback on a <br /> four-story building facing the apartments would seem very high and requested a larger <br /> setback. She suggested the Planning Commission determine setbacks when Phase 2 began. <br /> Ms. Clark stated it would be helpful to understand the Commission's tolerance regarding <br /> setbacks. She reminded the Commission that Mr. Jencek indicated they wanted to retain <br /> spaciousness in their project and thought it could be prudent to add language about the design <br /> in the PUD to give flexibility but to state the rules. Commissioner Allen reiterated she was not <br /> comfortable with a 32-foot setback, but could support a 50-foot setback, as the worst-case <br /> scenario. Commissioner Allen clarified her comments related to the 50-foot setback, stating it <br /> was a minimum of 50 feet to be validated by streetscapes, which have not yet been seen but <br /> will need to be seen in the future; if the streetscapes don't support it, then the 50-foot setback <br /> might not be sufficient. Commissioner O'Connor suggested a 50-foot minimum setback with <br /> the applicant requesting a modification if necessary. Commissioner Allen agreed with the <br /> suggestion. <br /> Commissioner Brown stated he liked the detail in Building 1 with the courtyard and that it <br /> mirrored the proposed residential reviewed for the mall development. He stated he liked the <br /> revision and suggested it might be better to have three- and four-story buildings but he liked <br /> the height. <br /> Chair Ritter stated he liked that the design removed the dumpsters currently at the entrance to <br /> the Stoneridge Mall area. He suggested waiting to determine setbacks until there were details <br /> on building height and location on the lot, adding that community benefit was more important to <br /> him. He suggested Building 1 be taller than Buildings 2 and 3 because it was further back and <br /> would give the campus more of a park feel. <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 8 November 18, 2020 <br />with the City. <br /> Commissioner Allen asked if the company was planning on keeping all three locations in the <br /> City or if they would consolidate after the opening of the proposed campus. Mr. Jencek stated <br /> the idea was new net growth. <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 8 November 18, 2020 <br />Approvals or that could prevent or <br /> 4412928_2 -10- <br /> the Project, which list shall include the following items: <br /> 4412928_2 -8- <br />