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
could be achieved for private open space through the provision of a public park. <br />It gives the developer the option to provide a public park in lieu of a private park. <br />The policy decision for the Commission to recommend for Council decision is <br />whether or not to incentivize that choice more or take it further and outright <br />require it. The Task Force did not take that step, and staff did not recommend <br />any additional change. <br />Commissioner Blank inquired what the incentives might be. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that the incentives would generally be in the financial area such as <br />reduced park dedication fees beyond the credit the developer would get from giving the <br />land. <br />Commissioner Blank indicated that it would be tough to go through that analysis within <br />the given timeframe. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that he believes this would not be effective until a specific project is <br />proposed; however, it would allow developers that option if it is to their advantage. He <br />added that the goal is to set up a framework to allow this conversation to be held. <br />Commissioner Pentin inquired if staff was referring to a private park in the <br />developments rather than a public or City park. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that some expressed the preference to have one of the properties <br />include a public park. He stated that the framework provides for internal trails which will <br />make block sizes smaller and through which people would be traveling up and down. <br />He noted that a developer could theoretically design the project such that a park or <br />private open space would end at one of those public trailways or streets and be <br />accessible from one of those access points. He added that space would be limited and <br />presented Veterans Park on Peters Avenue at .59 acre as an example. <br />Commissioner Olson noted that those who live in the area, such as the residents of the <br />Avila subdivision, are close to and have immediate access to the Iron Horse Trail, which <br />is a huge park, particularly for those riding bikes. He added that this would take a lot of <br />pressure off the need for a park. <br />Mr. Dolan indicated that the Task Force left this as an opportunity but not a requirement. <br />Commissioner Pentin referred back to the models presented by Mr. Williams and <br />inquired if there was a model that could incorporate a small park and still fit within the <br />guidelines. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that the model with a higher density has a super-sized plaza at the <br />corner, accessible from a public street, which could be made into a public park. He <br />indicated that there could be a concern regarding land being taken away, which might <br />affect the ability to provide the density; however, that would not be the case if this is <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, January 26, 2011 Page 17 of 50 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.