My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
07
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2016
>
092016
>
07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2016 1:08:00 PM
Creation date
9/15/2016 3:24:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
9/20/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
07
Document Relationships
07 ATTACHMENT 4
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\092016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
160
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 O'Connor: Absolutely, but I think going back, you have that card and like <br />Nancy is saying, the resident is actually parking in the street and not using their garage. <br />Chair Ritter: Can they put a sign on the street, since we're gaining 2 parking spaces on <br />the street, can you put a curbside guest parking sign? Even though you don't enforce it? <br />Seto: No. <br />Commissioner Nagler: The parking issue I really think comes down to a simple choice <br />and I think we just need to give the applicant some guidance. Either we believe that <br />there ought to be guest parking attendant to the development for this one and every one <br />that's going to come after it, in talking about the earlier point about precedent. Because <br />we obviously are seeing a trend downtown when older properties are being repurposed <br />for multiple, interesting units and we're just going to see an ever increasing number <br />because it's the way we're infilling, and we have to decide whether we're going to <br />require that parking be handled on a unit by unit basis or not. In the end, for this project, <br />it comes down to whether or not there ought to be 12 or 11 units. <br />Commissioner Allen: I think that's the fundamental question. <br />Chair Ritter: I agree. It seems like, for this project, you need two guest parking spaces <br />on the lot. <br />Commissioner Allen: I agree. <br />Chair Ritter: And you've got to figure out how to use 11 lots. <br />Commissioner Nagler: And for us the choice on this project and every other project is: <br />what's the balance of interest, the public interest, between the parking challenge versus <br />us wanting to create enough housing opportunities in the downtown core to create a <br />viable neighborhood, and it's a trade -off. You know, it's not necessarily black and white. <br />Everything is incremental, but it's sort of that choice, right? <br />Chair Ritter: And, it's a space they could do something with and we're not doing in -lieu <br />fees, so it's a perfect opportunity to say we need two extra spaces. <br />Commissioner Allen: I agree, and it's somewhat consistent. The other little design issue <br />that was a little bit of a worry to me which supports taking out one unit to help parking <br />was that there was one unit in the back that had a front - facing garage and that showed <br />from the street. <br />Amos: That would be Lot 7. <br />Commissioner Allen: Lot 7 had a front - facing garage that was offset and it showed on <br />the street, and our policy is that there shouldn't be front - facing garages showing on the <br />street. I mean it's a side issue but another reason why that one unit was a little <br />problematic. So taking it out seems to fit two different reasons. <br />Lee: Can I address that? The one unit you can see from the street, Lot 7, its 100 feet <br />back from St. John Street. If you take a conventional single family home anywhere in <br />EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 23, 2016 Page 16 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.