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
Curb cut—I support the principle of what you're saying in adding a spot. I worry that it <br /> kills an on-street parking spot, so I don't know if someone could let us know that now or <br /> not. With where that cut is now, it appears that several parking spots are possible on the <br /> street. I would hate to be moving the entrance to lose a spot on the street. <br /> Commissioner Nagler: We're shifting it, aren't we? <br /> Commissioner Balch: Hopefully so and I think if we're shifting it and not losing two on <br /> the street to gain one on the lot, I'd prefer that. I don't know if people have caught onto <br /> it, but I read it in the staff report, Condition 3 does state that this mixed use in <br /> Residence 1 cannot be used for residential. I remember at the workshop that we clearly <br /> talked about what options were available for mixed use in Residence 1, and I clearly <br /> said I like the project as is and would hate to see a change because of that. Yet it is <br /> changing. I'm quite okay personally if the mixed use in Residence 1 was used for <br /> residential. I think the intent of it is that it could be used for other stuff in the future, <br /> whether that be a residential like the micro-unit that's above the mixed use or whether <br /> that's residential as associated with the primary homeowner, or whether that is the <br /> office. You know, maybe he has a place of business and he has an employee which is <br /> not allowed in your home but could be used in a mixed use, as I presume, right? <br /> Because that would qualify for that situation, right? Because you cannot have an <br /> employee when you work at your home, but this would allow this person to have their <br /> employee in their office, correct? <br /> Amos: You could have an employee if you apply for a permit, a non-exempt home <br /> occupation permit. You could have it in that capacity. <br /> Commissioner Balch: Okay, maybe I didn't catch it then, so I guess what I'm saying is <br /> that I'm supporting more flexibility with it than just the non-residential element in <br /> Residence 1 but I really appreciate where we've gotten to. <br /> Commissioner Allen: I want to start off with Commissioner Nagler's comment too that I <br /> appreciate the creativity and the architecture. I actually like it a lot. The use of materials <br /> – I think we need to be consistent where we just did guidelines that are crystal clear in <br /> certain areas, so I'd like to see an alternative to siding and I am okay with the roofs <br /> since the guidelines do give us some flexibility there. <br /> On mixed use for Residence 1, I am not okay with supporting this project if we do not <br /> define this as Office. The reason is that we're not going for a General Plan Amendment <br /> and this project, right or wrong, in today's weird environment is zoned Office, and we're <br /> sort of working with this to create a mixed use. But we've got to keep some amount of <br /> office business in there or we really aren't doing what we're saying we're doing, and <br /> right now the project, as of the workshop, the project was less than 10% office business <br /> and it was over 90% residence. If we do add this 300 square feet for business, at least <br /> it puts us over 10%. We're probably sitting at 12% office, but essentially we have a <br /> residential project for the most part and that is not consistent as I've heard staff in their <br /> report and as I read the zoning and this project should demand going for a General Plan <br /> Amendment if we go that way. So, that's my reason for requiring Residence 1 to be a <br /> business. <br /> EXCERPT: DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2016 Page 12 of 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.