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