My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 020911
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 020911
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
4/20/2011 4:01:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/9/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
The Commission considered Question #1 and Question #2 together. <br /> <br />1. Is the proposed density acceptable? <br /> <br />2. Should a minimum of 15 units be built in order to require affordable housing units be <br />? <br /> <br />stated that he previously supported this density but is now <br />having second thoughts. He indicated that he understands that the plan for the <br />Downtown is to have more density, but he thinks this is too tight. He noted that there <br />will be a shortage of parking with the revamping of Stanley Boulevard. He added that <br />while the project includes 26 covered and 26 uncovered parking spaces, the reality is <br />that people do not park in their garages, and there is not enough guest parking for <br />visitors. He suggested more on-site parking, more open space, and the elimination of <br />one more unit. He indicated that he would not support increasing the density. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin stated that he would not support increasing the density and likes <br />the removal of the one unit [from 14] in order to increase the parking and possibly the <br />tot lot, but he would much prefer if another unit were removed. <br /> <br />Cunit is removed, some of the <br />trees might also be saved. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank stated that he supported the original configuration, but after having <br />heard some of the public testimony and reviewing the materials received, he thinks the <br />project should be brought down to 12 total units, which would be the elimination of an <br />additional unit. He noted that this would allow for additional open space, more trees, <br />and perhaps less shading issues on the PV panels. He indicated that he was not <br />supportive of 15 units on the property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce stated that she supported a reduction in density and more open <br />space but that she thinks there could be 15 units if they were not single-family homes. <br />She noted that the staff report states that retaining some of the cedar trees limits the <br />space to install play equipment, and if the project is that tight, then some of the units <br />need to be removed. She indicated, however, that given discussions at the Housing <br />Element Task Force regarding the need for affordable housing, she would not be <br />opposed to 15 non-single-family homes with decreased living space and increased <br />open space. <br /> <br />Chair Narum stated that she supported 13 units but believes the floor area ratio (FAR) is <br />too high and suggested decreasing the size of the homes in order to increase rear yard <br />setbacks. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce suggested a significant house size decrease, as the developer <br />may return with ten square feet less off of each home. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MINUTES, February 9, 2011 Page 15 of 41 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.