My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2016
>
031516
>
01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2016 11:17:48 AM
Creation date
3/10/2016 11:17:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
3/15/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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).
View images
View plain text
In response to Councilmember Pentin, Ms. Olsen stated that she did not recall making the statement <br /> that was alleged regarding "recruiting and retaining vibrant retail and to put residential directly behind." <br /> Steve Grimes, 27 year resident, expressed concerns that families will be moving into the proposed <br /> units, not just 2 people and this will likely increase the number of cars and drivers per unit. He inquired <br /> as to the amount and use of the parking in-lieu fees that have been collected over the past 20 years, as <br /> he does not see a decrease in the parking impacts. Four spaces will not be adequate for the massing of <br /> the commercial building. He urged the Council to send this project back to the Planning Commission for <br /> further study. <br /> Hwa J. Kim, property owner on Main Street, stated the building will be very nice and parking is not his <br /> main concern. He finds no reason to refuse this project and agrees with it. <br /> Mark Kearns said he lives on the east side of the project, and stated that in 2005 he purchased a <br /> depressed property that had been vacant for 15 years. He rebuilt it and brought it back to the Mission <br /> Revival style as a single family home. He was not allowed to take it to a second story and has a <br /> problem with parking. He still has staff members that park far away from the commercial unit he owns <br /> that walk a significant distance to work. He would like to see the property developed, but would like to <br /> see more of a setback and less massing. <br /> In response to the comments made by public speakers, Mr. Grant applicant presented slides showing <br /> the ratio of commercial to residential and he feels it is very appropriate to have the bulk of commercial <br /> on Spring Street, as that is what the City wants. There is tuck under parking and they have tried to <br /> accommodate what the City wants from a commercial/retail point of view on Spring Street. None of the <br /> properties on Main Street provide on-site parking, and the applicant is also paying in-lieu fees in <br /> acknowledgement of the parking loss. The massing proposed is well under what the Municipal Code <br /> allows, including not building to the property line and only 30 feet high. The CC zone allows <br /> construction no set backs to property line 40 feet high. He proposed a parking concept that would allow <br /> them to apply the in-lieu fees toward a parking lot in the Downtown area. <br /> Councilmember Pentin inquired about what happened to the 19 proposed spaces for the retail <br /> component. <br /> Mayor Thorne closed the public hearing. <br /> Vice Mayor Narum commented that the commercial component of the project increases the parking <br /> requirement and expressed concern that we are trying to do too much on the commercial side in regard <br /> to the massing. Staff stated that the residential development is driving this project, and mixed-use is <br /> what they are trying to achieve in the Downtown area. Director of Community Development Beaudin <br /> explained that mixed-used is a higher priority and staff is trying to pursue a more "area-wide" approach <br /> to Downtown parking. <br /> Mayor Thorne appreciated the work the applicant has put into the architecture. He expressed concerns <br /> regarding the tandem parking, as he believes it will not work in the Downtown area. He would prefer <br /> smaller massing and continued to express concerns about Downtown noise complaints. He suggested <br /> the applicant take the Council's input and that the Council allow him to bring it back with proposed <br /> changes. At this time, he cannot support the project as proposed. <br /> Vice Mayor Narum supports mixed-use for this property, but not commercial all the way to the back. <br /> Destination tenants are hard to find, and empty space is worse than having nothing. She supports the <br /> condition disclosing the noise in the Downtown area. She is concerned about the massing as seen from <br /> the perspective of the single story houses on Main Street. She would like to push everything back, <br /> including the second story, and to have a little more view-scape down Spring Street for those other <br /> houses. She supports Mayor Thorne's suggestion to give the applicant an opportunity make <br /> City Council Minutes Page 7 of 12 February 2,2016 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.