Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Excerpt: Approved Planning Commission Minutes, September 8, 2021 Page 5 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioner Nibert discussed the requirement for photovoltaic shade structures for <br />vehicular and bicycle parking. Mr. Williams stated it was somewhat unique but he had <br />seen it being added in conjunction with the Building Reach Codes. Commissioner Nibert <br />suggested defining Class I, Class II, and the APBP Bicycle Parking Guidelines. <br />Commissioner Nibert also pointed out that the reference in A7.4 regarding minimum <br />depths should be to A2.5. Mr. Williams stated he would review and correct if necessary. <br /> <br />Commissioner Gaidos stated he viewed the January 13, 2021 Work Session and <br />agreed that utility screening was important. Commissioner Allen concurred. <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Allen’s inquiry about setbacks, Ms. Bonn referenced page <br />9. Mr. Williams explained the intent to provide a landscape buffer from the property line. <br />Chair Brown confirmed the setback still applied even with a 10-foot fence. <br />Commissioner Allen confirmed the front setback was 10 feet. Mr. Williams discussed <br />the large streets in Pleasanton and transition from old commercial sites to residential <br />properties while providing ample landscaping that was not excessive. Commissioner <br />Allen mentioned market-based housing and the newer Las Positas developments, <br />Andares, indicating the setback seemed further than 10 feet. She suggested the <br />possibility of further clarity for certain exceptions. Commissioner Morgan stated he could <br />also visualize buildings where more than 10 feet would be necessary. Commissioner <br />Allen suggested exceptions for a certain height and/or a certain adjacency. Ms. Clark <br />discussed the design principle that the wider the street, the greater the need for <br />buildings to be closer to the street to visually define the street edge. Mr. Williams stated <br />he would review the standard and look for a middle ground; he discussed the Andares <br />project, with a much wider setback that created a disconnect from the street. Ms. Clark <br />referenced the Vintage development, with a successful smaller setback. <br /> <br />Commissioner Gaidos discussed the difficulty in creating objective standards to apply to <br />multiple, different locations throughout the City. He suggested the possibility of regional <br />standards. Chair Brown stated that would create specific plans. He asked if an objective <br />design standard could be created based on the road surface area. Mr. Williams stated <br />he would review for addressing flexibility. <br /> <br />Chair Brown asked if the comments would be brought back to the Commission for <br />further consideration. Ms. Clark confirmed that staff would incorporate the comments <br />and bring the matter back to the Commission prior to it going to the City Council. <br /> <br />Commissioner Morgan suggested the standards be applied to the proposed Regional <br />Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) properties. Ms. Clark stated the standards were <br />tailored to the nine sites in the last Housing Element, but a future round of Objective <br />Standards would address new Housing Element sites. <br />