3 - Laserfiche WebLink

The proposed amendments to the document also include only guidelines and strategies to ensure new development is compatible with the existing neighborhood. These strategies include: providing setbacks to match adjacent properties; provide enhanced landscaping; providing an increased setback for floor(s) above the lower adjacent residential development; and locating taller building in the center of the site or at arterial intersections, allowing less tall aspects of the project to be located adjacent to existing residential development. Part 5 (Appendices) Whereas the appendices in the 2012 Housing DG referred to an excerpt from the PMC regarding usable open space and a site-by-site summary of the nine housing sites, the proposed appendices would delete the PMC excerpt but still include the site-specific housing site summaries, along with a summary of various building types (previously located in Part 3 of the document), and a glossary of terms used in the document. Density Greater Than 30 units/acre During the Design Training and in introductory meetings concerning the objective design standards, the Planning Commission expressed interest in receiving more information about projects that had density at or greater than 30 units per acre to help inform future discussions about appropriate densities for sites in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. Existing Projects in Pleasanton One example of a project over 30 units/acre in Pleasanton is the Vintage Apartments. In this project, although the average density across the project site is 30 units per acre, actual density in different subareas of the site varies, being at about 40 units per acre at the southeast corner of the site where the podium building is located. Increasing the mass and density of this portion of the site allowed the units along Bernal Avenue to be lower-density, two-story structures. Other sites that were rezoned as part of the 2012 Housing Element were identified for greater density than 30 units per acre (e.g., the site at Stoneridge Mall was rezoned at a density of 40 units per acre and the California Center site was rezoned at a density range of 35 to 40 units per acre). Although a project was approved at California Center, and another is proposed at Stoneridge Mall, neither of these projects have yet been constructed. As the example of the Vintage Apartments demonstrates, building density and project density may be different. Generally, building densities at or above 40 dwelling units per acre require some form of structured parking. Conversely, the cost of structured parking makes podium buildings uneconomical at densities less than 40 units per acre. Podium buildings (such as the building at the southeast corner of Vintage Apartments) are often seen as desirable, because this typology provides courtyards, increased open space, and better resident amenities than can be achieved with typical surface-parked designs. With the exception of Irby Ranch and Vintage Apartments, developers that proposed projects on sites from the 2012 Housing Element generally proposed buildings that were uniformly designed to the required site density. Since the site rezoned for the 2012 Housing Element ranged from 30 to 35 units per acre, this development pattern generally resulted in homogenous surface-parked projects and incentivized applicants to build to the lower end of allowed densities to reduce their construction cost. P20-0989, Objective Design Standards Planning Commission 12 of 14 tive Design Standards Planning Commission 3 of 14