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
Commissioner Balch: The mixed use in Residence 1? <br /> Commissioner Allen: The mixed use of Residence 1. I mean I'm right on the edge with <br /> even that bumping up, but I understand why we're there. On parking, there is a new <br /> piece of information that came up in workshop. At the workshop we were under the <br /> belief from the information we had from Mr. Carey that the residence next door was <br /> required to have one parking spot for a studio and as he said today, he was saying the <br /> residence next door had one parking spot they were required to have and in fact we <br /> learned today from staff that it's 1.5; that the residence next door and the RM district <br /> requires 1.5 parking spots per apartment unit. Correct me if that changes but that's what <br /> I heard you say, so that changes my thinking of where I was at. If that's really the rules, <br /> I think we need to be fair and consistent with that thinking versus giving this property a <br /> better deal than someone else. So I would say the math would come up with the three <br /> studios being 1.5. That equals 4.5 units. The new commercial space for Residence 1 is <br /> one, so that's another one and then the commercial that's in the multi-use building is <br /> three so if my math's right, that's 8.5 spots of parking that would be required. And <br /> someone's got to figure out how to do it. I'm not in favor of curb cuts if it means a street <br /> spot is lost. Traditionally if a street spot is lost, we also require someone to give it back. <br /> Commissioner Nagler: If we move the curb cut, are we losing a parking spot on the <br /> street? <br /> Amos: There's no designated striping in that area. It's unlikely that you'll lose a spot if <br /> you're moving the curb. <br /> Commissioner Allen: Okay, so that's where I come out on parking. And I know if we go <br /> the parking way it impacts density and the layout, but then I come back to the one issue <br /> that I'm really struggling with this on this whole project, and that is compatibility with the <br /> neighborhood. I've been reading these design guidelines and thinking about them. New <br /> construction needs to be especially sensitive to surrounding structures. There's a lot of <br /> discussion about massing, about paying attention to what's there. I know this is an older <br /> neighborhood and that doesn't mean we need to build single family homes. That's not <br /> what we're trying to do. We're trying to upgrade a neighborhood, but I really, really think <br /> that whether you call it a multi-use building or what, this building that's on a setback of <br /> one foot that's 30 feet high and three-stories is just not a fit with that little neighborhood. <br /> I asked Natalie how many projects have we approved that are 30 feet, three-stories and <br /> a one-foot setback and there were none. I mean, we had a challenge with Mike's <br /> project on Peters Street and you know, with needing a 20 foot setback; now those <br /> buildings are a little taller but it was a 20 foot setback and Mike said to us the reason I'm <br /> going 20 feet is I've done other projects that people have complained about because <br /> they had an 8 or 10 foot setback and the 30 feet was a little overpowering around <br /> smaller homes, and so I am fundamentally not feeling like I can find this project is <br /> compatible today with this neighborhood at this massing and I wish I asked and I'm <br /> sorry I didn't, and I'll bring up later but I think for some of these projects, story poles are <br /> going to be critical; that sometimes you don't know how something's going to look until <br /> it's built and anyway, so I couldn't find for this being compatible without me personally <br /> seeing story poles and if I saw them I'm afraid it would be a problem. <br /> Beaudin: Commissioner Allen, can I just ask? The one foot setback; is this the mixed <br /> use building that's of concern? <br /> EXCERPT: DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2016 Page 13 of 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.