My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 012611
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 012611
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
4/20/2011 3:59:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/26/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Make bike and pedestrian circulation around and through the development <br />clearer. Text and a legend on diagrams have been added to identify bike and <br />pedestrian paths (pp. 7 and 9 of the Standards and Design Guidelines). <br />Commissioner Blank referred to the allowed uses on pages 15 and 16 of the Design <br />Guidelines. He stated that there may be people who may potentially be in Live/Work, <br />and he noted that there are uses listed for Retail Space which are not listed for <br />Live/Work, such as "tailor." <br />Ms. Stern explained that these are all permitted uses. <br />Commissioner O’Connor referred to the "residential uses" listed as an allowed use for <br />. <br />Live/WorkHe inquired whether this meant that residential uses are allowed as long as <br />the unit is designed to accommodate Live/Work that it could be full residential until <br />someone would request a live/work situation. <br />Mr. Dolan said yes. <br />Commissioner Pentin inquired if it would be necessary to spell out in the guidelines that <br />it could be a Live/Live and strictly residential until such use. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that some language could be added to that effect, although he was <br />not sure whether he would use the term “Live/Live” which is becoming more popular. <br />Mr. Dolan then presented his report. He stated that he would review the table of issues <br />starting on page 5 of the staff report. He noted that these are areas that resonated with <br />all the Task Force members and where there was considerable discussion over the <br />entire length of the process. He added that in most cases, the members did not come <br />to unanimous consensus on any of them. Mr. Dolan indicated that what is in the <br />document represents generally what the majority of the members thought on the final <br />day. He noted, however, that there were minority opinions and that on some issues, the <br />Commission might very well forward a different recommendation to the City Council <br />than the final conclusion of the Task Force. <br />Feasibility of the potential projects. Staff is required through the Settlement <br />Agreement not to impose standards and guidelines that would deem a project <br />infeasible. This is fairly broad, and the determination of what is infeasible is <br />going to be a challenge. The language is more than that in a normal <br />development where rules are set and the developer has a choice to comply or to <br />leave. <br />Commissioner Olson inquired if feasibility relates to economics. <br />Mr. Dolan said yes. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, January 26, 2011 Page 15 of 50 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.