My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 052814
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
PC 052814
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:15:22 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:10:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/28/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Piper stated that she thinks the project looks so amazing but was <br />concerned about parking issues. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that in the retail area of the Downtown, if the property owner or <br />developer cannot provide additional parking, and hardly anybody can, then they have to <br />pay an in -lieu parking fee. He stated that in this case, the applicant has negotiated the <br />dedication of the public plaza in exchange for that parking in -lieu fee. He noted that it is <br />a fairly unique situation with the Downtown because the City wants the businesses to <br />line up very tightly and have a very walkable experience rather than have buildings and <br />a parking lot. <br />Chair O'Connor inquired if the exchange of the in -lieu parking fee with a public plaza is <br />in perpetuity, that the plaza would actually be a public amenity which would not be <br />allowed to ever change, such that if the tenant were to change over time, the new <br />tenant would not be allowed to encroach on that area. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that he thinks the new tenant could re- negotiate and give the City the <br />parking in -lieu fee. He stated that the City Council could choose to do something <br />different but the City would have to get the in -lieu parking fee money back down the <br />road. <br />Ms. Wallis stated that there is a draft agreement between the City and the property <br />owner which would be recorded and would run with the land. She noted that the exhibit <br />to that agreement would show that the plaza area is supposed to be open to the public <br />and not be associated with a tenant. She added, however, that the agreement could be <br />re- negotiated by the City if there were any changes. <br />Commissioner Allen noted that the shingles should on the elevations are real stark, but <br />on the materials list, it looks more like a slate and a soft gray, which are more <br />representative than black. <br />Mr. Ward replied that was correct. He added that only the upper roof would have them. <br />Commissioner Allen stated that this is the first project the City has since the adoption of <br />the new Downtown ordinance, and an amenity for the public is being created in lieu of <br />parking. She added that taking off on this idea, she would really love to see just a little <br />bit more space, where maybe people can sit down and play cards if they wanted, or <br />read the newspaper and have a little permanent table to put the newspaper down, but <br />without creating too much space. She then reiterated her concern about skateboarders <br />in a small space like that. <br />Mr. Sherwood replied that he is coming from a different angle or thought process. He <br />indicated that he did not want to end up throwing a couple of lightweight aluminum <br />chairs and then having them scattered all over. He stated that he did not want that look <br />for that corner; he wants it to be beautiful, neat, and organized. He noted that that <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 28, 2014 Page 6 of 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.