10 - Laserfiche WebLink

P20-0989, Objective Design Standards Planning Commission 5 of 12 Commissioner liked that garages faced other garages at the Mason Flats located at Township Square. Also, four out of five respondents to the online questionnaire (including two Planning Commissioners) indicated that homes and entries should be required to face other entries, open spaces, or streets. • Building Articulation, Materials, Detailing, and Design: Commissioners generally liked the architecture and materials used at the Vintage Apartments and Mason Flats at Township Square projects. One member of the public was critical of the Vintage Apartments project, concluding that it lacked architectural detailing and articulation of its rooflines. Both members of the public that commented on the online questionnaire thought the materials and building articulation for the Andares project to be well-done and effective. The Commissioners and members of the public were most critical of the appearance of the Galloway project, citing that its materials, color palette, lack of detailing, and no significant changes in plane to its façades contributed to a less than desirable appearance. • Wayfinding: A Commissioner commented that the Mason Flats at Township Square project was easy to navigate, and that it felt safe and comfortable as a pedestrian. While most participants of the self-guided tour found the Vintage Apartments project to have sufficient landmark features for wayfinding, one Commissioner and one member of the public found it easy to get lost in the project. • Utility Equipment: Most participants of the self-guided tour indicated that utility equipment (such as AC units) had an intrusive impact at the Andares project, as was also the case at the project located at 536 St. John Street. • Public Spaces/Plazas: None of the participants of the self-guided tour thought the plaza at the Galloway project, located adjacent to the crossing at the BART s tation, provided an active and usable space; instead, the consensus was that the area is not successfully designed and is a missed opportunity near a major transit stop. • Successful Project Elements: Generally, the use of high-quality materials contributed to the success of some projects (e.g., Andares overall materials, use of brick at Mason Flats). Also, as was discussed regarding the Vintage Apartments, the density from the public right-of-way appears less than actual density of project, either because of good quality design or because the density is “tiered ,” where the buildings with greater density are located farther away from the street, allowing less dense buildings to front public-facing areas. Less prominent garages were thought to be successful, as was quality architecture and streetscape. • Least Successful Project Elements: Projects that have prominent garages facing street/public right-of-way, reducing emphasis to pedestrian entries, were thought of to be less successful. The Commission liked the concept of increasing the size of open space by placing vehicular parking underground. For some projects, such as three-story units located at 730 Peters Avenue and the Galloway project near BART, the building colors were not found to be compatible with surroundings. The concept of consistent and detailed design treatment on all four sides of a building was a comment raised after visiting the project at 536 St. John Street.