My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 090915
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
PC 090915
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:54:33 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:45:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/9/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
thinks it creates a precedent and as some among the Commissioners mentioned, she <br />would have liked to have one less unit as well. She stated that looking at future <br />applications coming this way, the Commission does not always need to aim at getting <br />the maximum on utilization of the site; it is more a matter of how the amount of units fit <br />in the neighborhood and that specific site. She added that what happens Downtown on <br />a major street like Peters Avenue is very, very different than what happens in this little <br />neighborhood; it is mainly single stories with very tight lots on a narrow street. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that he would have liked to have seen more <br />streetscapes as well, but the number of units for this project is below what is allowed on <br />the site. <br />Commissioner Balch stated that four units versus three units does not feel very perfect. <br />He indicated that parking was discussed at the last meeting and asked if any of the <br />Commissioners might feel like trying to refigure it or sending it back, or if they are fine <br />with proceeding the way it is. <br />Chair Allen stated that she should be open to sending it back, but the Commission has <br />already spent so much time on this. She indicated that she would have liked to see <br />three, but given the amount of discussion the Commission has had on this and where it <br />is at this point, she would not like to send it back. <br />Commissioner O'Connor commented that it would have been nice to see the <br />neighborhood present as well. <br />Commissioner Balch moved to approve Case P15 -0290, per Option 1, marked <br />"Received July 13, 2015" and revised plan sheets A201 and A101, marked <br />"Received July 22, 2015, for Case No. P15 -0290, subject to the Conditions of <br />Approval listed in Exhibit A of the staff report. <br />Commissioner Piper seconded the motion. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />AYES: Commissioners Allen, Balch, and Piper <br />NOES: Commissioners Ritter and O'Connor <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />RECUSED: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />Resolution No. PC- 2015 -29 approving Case P15 -0290 per Option 1 was entered and <br />adopted as motioned. <br />7. MATTERS INITIATED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS <br />Downtown Parking Survey <br />Commissioner Balch requested that the Planning Commission choose the evaluation of <br />the Downtown Parking Plan as its priority for the next City Council Priorities. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 9, 2015 Page 15 of 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.