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
they're doing the rezoning for it, we were looking at it and trying to keep it as close as possible <br /> to meeting the code requirements. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor: Okay. I thought what was driving the two per apartment was that it <br /> had the office overlay. <br /> Weinstein: These parking standards are not unique to the Office District. They would apply to <br /> any mixed use project throughout the city unless there were specific reduced standards for that <br /> mixed use project. I think what is happening is that there is a core area overlay that's located in <br /> this area but only applies to multi-family residentially zoned properties and that core area <br /> overlay offers reduced parking requirements for projects like this. <br /> For instance, the parcel just to the north of this one that was looked at by the Planning <br /> Commission several months ago: the Alok Damireddy project, that included apartment units. <br /> Because those apartment units were in the Core Area Overlay District in a residentially zoned <br /> district, the parking requirement was only one space per unit. So again, just one parcel over <br /> has different parking regulations in our code compared to the one that we're looking at here. <br /> Commissioner Balch: Can I ask a quick follow-up? So on the Knuppe project which we did up <br /> on Spring Street, we were looking at the size of the square footage of one use versus the <br /> residential uses as well on that same parcel, right? That's not happening here because of the <br /> mixed use element of the building? <br /> Weinstein: Yes, I think what you're asking is maybe a land use question, like what's the right <br /> ratio of commercial to..... <br /> Commissioner Balch: ....yeah, so maybe it was because it was commercial because when it <br /> came to workshop it was one size. It got expanded, and then that created a parking issue as <br /> well because parking was based more on square footage of the commercial use. But in this, <br /> the office use, that doesn't drive <br /> Weinstein: It is actually because there's one per the code. If we're just looking at code <br /> requirements right now, there's one space required for every 300 square feet of office. So the <br /> bigger the office grows, the more parking is required and that's an important consideration <br /> when thinking about design modifications of the site. If you increase a land use, it's going to <br /> require more parking and it's a relatively constrained site so it can be tough to fit the additional <br /> land use and the additional parking into one site. <br /> Commissioner Balch: Okay, so then applying it to this particular site, then the square footage <br /> calculation was done and that's where these nine spots came from, right? <br /> Amos: Yes. <br /> Commissioner Balch: Okay, thank you. <br /> Chair Ritter: Any other questions? <br /> Commissioner Brown: Yes, if you could expand on the PMC amendment for limiting the height <br /> and stories in downtown, as it relates to Land Use Policy 15? <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 25, 2016 Page 2 of 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.