My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
13
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2016
>
090616
>
13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2016 1:49:21 PM
Creation date
8/31/2016 3:01:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
9/6/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
13
Document Relationships
13 ATTACHMENT 3
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\090616
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
163
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
important element to the overall look and architecture of the structures and that we <br /> shouldn't start changing it. So I'm fine with the metal roof. <br /> On the setbacks, I appreciate that the setback particularly on the mixed use building is <br /> much less than what we typically require and we've talked about that previously and I've <br /> certainly thought about it. I think I'm fine with it mostly because we want to communicate <br /> that this is a mixed use building and that there is a commercial element to it. Given the <br /> size of the lot and the fact that the applicant is attempting to get the number of buildings <br /> onto it that they are, and in conjunction with that, that we want the mixed use building to <br /> clearly have a commercial component to it, I'm fine with the less than standard setback <br /> on that building, and that the setbacks on the rest of the project are within striking <br /> distance. <br /> On the parking, it's a tough one and I harp back to the fact that nothing has really <br /> changed on this question since our workshop and that our workshop fully discussed and <br /> vetted this issue. The one thing that maybe has changed is the mixed use on <br /> Residence 1, so one could reasonably argue that there is a requirement for one <br /> additional parking space that has been overall added to the project based on the <br /> change that we asked for. Otherwise, what we discussed at the workshop remains true <br /> today and I would like a general operating principle that what we decide and the <br /> guidance we give at workshops prevail unless something new is learned. And <br /> Commissioner Allen, on several of her points, raised a good point of explanation that at <br /> the time of the workshop some details were not known and that's a legitimate reason I <br /> think to change the guidance from a workshop or to change one's opinion. But if nothing <br /> does change I believe that the guidance we give at workshops to the extent possible <br /> should prevail in our final action. So to that degree, the fact that the studios are as small <br /> as they are, that the development is as close to public transportation as it is, that it is in <br /> the City core as it is, leads me to continue to believe that the conclusion reached at the <br /> workshop is the right one on parking; however, I do support the change in the curb cut- <br /> out and I would like that additional space to be added because it is possible to do and I <br /> think it would be a reasonable change. <br /> Commissioner Balch: That was a good synopsis. So harking back to the workshop, I <br /> remember you and I were very tight in hand on that comment about the mixed use <br /> addition, and basically to paraphrase, it was "we'd like to see it in Residence 1" and I <br /> made sure I clearly stated that I knew it would cause the parking question to come up <br /> when or if the mixed use came in. <br /> I personally am extremely happy that the applicant was willing to change the plan to <br /> accommodate this mixed use in Residence 1. I think, as Tim has said, this completely <br /> makes the project look better, definitely from the street. I just want to compliment <br /> everyone working together to get that because I think this mixed use is outstanding. In <br /> terms of the siding being metal, I can go with that. I think that's a good statement. If it is <br /> expressly prohibited as Commissioner Allen pointed out, we need to stay with that. I <br /> also support the roof metal staying consistent. I think Commissioner Nagler pointed out <br /> it adds to it and adds interest and I think that is needed. I personally think the look is <br /> really nice on the plan showing those finishes you used. <br /> EXCERPT: DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2016 Page 11 of 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.