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
Commissioner Pearce stated that Conditional Use Permit requests of this type could be <br />put on the Consent Calendar. <br />Development Standards and Design Guidelines <br />Commissioner Pearce inquired what the process would be for deciding what street <br />design to use. She requested that the Commission have a conversation about how to <br />decide what to do in this section. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that there are two options that are approvable, and the Council can <br />either leave an option open or pick one. He added that staff will probably get more input <br />from BRE or W.P. Carey. He indicated that the second option requires less movement <br />of the curb and provides a little more land to use for building, but it takes away land from <br />parking. He noted that there should not be any land issue in the sense that whatever <br />space is lost to put in a building is gained to put in parking; both have to be done. <br />Commissioner O’Connor inquired if the angled parking is designed for the retail. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that it is not necessarily specified, but it surely counts because it is <br />very convenient to retail, to the residential that would be right there, and to any Live/Live <br />or Live/Work that ultimately transitions. He added that with 5,000 square feet of retail <br />and some Live/Live there, it would also be logical for guest parking for the entire project. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that under the old scenario, BRE would likely come first on Parcel 2, <br />and it would build no retail as this is not required. He noted that Parcel 1 comes next <br />with 5,000-square-foot minimum retail, and then the Roche property comes last, and if <br />the 5,000 square feet of required retail is still there, it would be built then. <br />Commissioner Narum inquired how Option A1b. could go forward, given the traffic <br />safety analysis presented earlier by Mr. Tassano. She further inquired if the <br />Commission would need to add some language regarding mitigating it. <br />Mr. Dolan indicated that Mr. Tassano has some concerns about Option A1b which he <br />has outlined. He stated that there are probably some variations in between the two <br />options, but the backing-up issue needs to be addressed for safety reasons. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that what it comes down to is what would be a valuable opinion to <br />share with the Council. He noted that the study shows that Option A1a works <br />beautifully. He added that those on the Task Force were able see a video of what that <br />area would be like during PM peak hours, which showed very light traffic. He indicated <br />that there is a lot of capacity out there and that Option A1a. will work. <br />Commissioner O’Connor inquired if the lanes could be one lane going one direction and <br />the two lanes the opposite direction as depicted in Option A1a. but configured as it is in <br />Option A1b. without a separate median but with a curb or something similar <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, January 26, 2011 Page 40 of 50 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.