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
The self-guided site tour consisted of seven locations, two of which consisted of smaller-scale <br />infill sites located downtown and others were larger-scale developments throughout the city. <br />The input provided by three Planning Commissioners that completed the online questionnaire <br />was discussed at the January 13, 2021, meeting, along with feedback provided at the meeting <br />itself. Since the Planning Commission meeting, two members of the public completed the <br />questionnaire. The aggregate of the feedback from the questionnaire is summarized in Exhibit <br />C, which also includes the January 13 approved meeting minutes and agenda report). <br />Generally, as suggested by the discussion of the January 13, 2021, meeting, the Planning <br />Commission and the members of the public found some projects on the site tour to be better <br />projects than others, with responses organized around the following topics as follows. Note <br />that the below list is not exhaustive; please see Exhibit C for a more comprehensive summary <br />of all comments received: <br />•Site Planning: While the use of the alley at the project located at 536 St. John Street <br />received mixed responses, two Commissioners found the circulation for the Irby Ranch <br />project to be confusing and awkward; one Commissioner attributed this to the mix of <br />alleys and streets combined with the positioning of homes along these areas. A <br />Commissioner thought the paseos at the Andares project were particularly helpful in <br />contributing to an easy-to-navigate site plan. <br />•Parking: A question regarding a preference for either single-or double-car driveways <br />downtown received split responses when asked in context of the project at 730 Peters <br />Avenue; one Commissioner commented that the vehicular parking facilities (i.e., <br />driveway and garage) are too prominent and resulted in the loss of significant public <br />street parking. Several members of the Planning Commission and a member of the <br />public liked the underground parking at the Vintage Apartments project located at the <br />intersection of Stanley Boulevard and Bernal and Valley Avenues, and one pointed out <br />that this facilitated a larger common open space area. While a member of the public <br />like the fact that parking spaces were numbered at the Galloway located near the BART <br />station, a Commissioner found that vehicular parking at the project was too visible. <br />•Building Orientation: All questionnaire respondents indicated that they would like homes <br />to face other homes when asked about the Irby Ranch project. A Commissioner liked <br />that garages faced other garages at the Mason Flats located at Township Square. Also, <br />four out of five respondents to the on line questionnaire (including two Planning <br />Commissioners) indicated that homes and entries should be required to face other <br />entries, open spaces, or streets. <br />•Building Articulation, Materials, Detailing, and Design: Commissioners generally liked <br />the architecture and materials used at the Vintage Apartments and Mason Flats at <br />Township Square projects. One member of the public was critical of the Vintage <br />Apartments project, concluding that it lacked architectural detailing and articulation of its <br />rooflines. Both members of the public that commented on the on line questionnaire <br />thought the materials and building articulation for the Andares project to be well-done <br />and effective. The Commissioners and members of the public were most critical of the <br />appearance of the Galloway project, citing that its materials, color palette, lack of <br />P20-0989, Objective Design Standards Planning Commission <br />4 of 14
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.