_Minutes_September 8, 2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Brown commended staff and the consultant on developing specific standards. He referenced Part 3 development standards and design guidelines and asked if the standards provided a minimum feasible site size for high density housing. Mr. Williams explained the design principals and standards were applicable to small, medium and large sites respectively. He suggested specific rules for the various development size, with principles related to all development. Chair Brown discussed standards regarding internal streets and asked if the proposal was sensible for all projects. Mr. Williams indicated he would clarify and refine the standards. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED There were no comments from the public. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Pace asked if guiding principles were necessary to address conditions and densities city-wide. Ms. Clark reiterated the standards were tailored to the current Housing Element sites which had both minimum and maximum density ranges. The Commission discussed draft changes to Parts 1 and 2 and concurred with the proposed changes. Commissioner Nibert questioned Standard B2.2 preventing the entryway from exceeding 20 percent of the interior width and whether that would limit the interior unit width. Mr. Williams stated he would provide clarity as to the purpose of the standard. Chair Brown asked about the proposed paseo width and requirement around adjoining buildings. Ms. Bonn explained the paseo width would be one-third of the sum of the building height adjoining the paseo, with a minimum of 22 feet and maximum of 35 feet. Commissioner Pace asked for clarity on the minimum and maximum widths. Mr. Williams discussed the review of existing townhomes, row houses, and apartments, and determination of successful paseo widths. He discussed standards in other communities based on building height and efforts to maintain intimacy, light and landscaping. Chair Brown asked if the architect could determine the appropriate width. Mr. Williams discussed the desire for more narrow paseos in order to increase the number of buildable units. Commissioner Nibert asked if Development Standard A6.1 and the accompanying figure were inconsistent. Ms. Clark confirmed the text and figures would be updated to be consistent. Commissioner Pace asked the meaning of the term "massing break" and referenced the 10x Genomics site, Workday site and Stoneridge Mall buildings. Mr. Williams referenced Page 32 explaining the definition and purpose of massing breaks. Commissioner Pace asked if the standard applied to commercial and residential. Mr. Williams confirmed it applied to residential. Commissioner Nibert referenced the dimension labeled as, "Z2" on page 32 and suggested the end points be shown as the dimension labeled as, "Z1." Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 10 September 8, 2021 rather than affordable housing. Mr. Williams explained the reduced parking ratio was based on market rate housing, since different parking standards were specified by the State for certain affordable projects. Commissioner Morgan asked about the desire for architectural features to reflect other buildings and properties in the area. Ms. Clark explained these were guidelines rather than standards, since the City might not always want to emulate the surrounding vicinity, depending on the type of uses that were adjacent. She stated the guideline allowed flexibility to consider each project in context. Commissioner Morgan asked if other cities had come up with good standards or if they were scrambling to meet State's requirements. Mr. Williams stated most communities were in the same situation as Pleasanton, scrambling to develop standards to meet the State's requirements by developing objective design standards and procedures. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 10 September 8, 2021