My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
03 ATTACHMENT 3
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2023
>
012623 SPECIAL
>
03 ATTACHMENT 3
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/20/2023 5:44:45 PM
Creation date
1/20/2023 5:19:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
1/26/2023
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
03
(Message)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2023\012623 SPECIAL
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />Excerpt: Approved Planning Commission Minutes, September 8, 2021 Page 3 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />explained the design principals and standards were applicable to small, medium and <br />large sites respectively. He suggested specific rules for the various development size, <br />with principles related to all development. <br /> <br />Chair Brown discussed standards regarding internal streets and asked if the proposal <br />was sensible for all projects. Mr. Williams indicated he would clarify and refine the <br />standards. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED <br /> <br />There were no comments from the public. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED <br /> <br />Commissioner Pace asked if guiding principles were necessary to address conditions <br />and densities city-wide. Ms. Clark reiterated the standards were tailored to the current <br />Housing Element sites which had both minimum and maximum density ranges. <br /> <br />The Commission discussed draft changes to Parts 1 and 2 and concurred with the <br />proposed changes. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nibert questioned Standard B2.2 preventing the entryway from <br />exceeding <br />20 percent of the interior width and whether that would limit the interior unit width. Mr. <br />Williams stated he would provide clarity as to the purpose of the standard. <br /> <br />Chair Brown asked about the proposed paseo width and requirement around adjoining <br />buildings. Ms. Bonn explained the paseo width would be one-third of the sum of the <br />building height adjoining the paseo, with a minimum of 22 feet and maximum of 35 feet. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pace asked for clarity on the minimum and maximum widths. Mr. <br />Williams discussed the review of existing townhomes, row houses, and apartments, and <br />determination of successful paseo widths. He discussed standards in other communities <br />based on building height and efforts to maintain intimacy, light and landscaping. Chair <br />Brown asked if the architect could determine the appropriate width. Mr. Williams <br />discussed the desire for more narrow paseos in order to increase the number of <br />buildable units. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nibert asked if Development Standard A6.1 and the accompanying <br />figure were inconsistent. Ms. Clark confirmed the text and figures would be updated to <br />be consistent. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pace asked the meaning of the term “massing break” and referenced the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.