My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 111815
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
PC 111815
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:58:07 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:53:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/18/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
Mr. Weinstein replied that typically in the C -C district, it would be a ground -level <br />commercial space and then second -floor residential space. <br />Commissioner O'Connor inquired if that creates a grandfathering. <br />Mr. Weinstein replied that members of the applicant team talked about the juxtaposition <br />of zoning and Specific Plan designations here. He explained that the existing zoning is <br />C -C, but it is designated for office uses in the Downtown Specific Plan, so there is this <br />disconnect between what is in the Specific Plan and what the site is zoned for. He <br />added that staff is looking at a slightly different interpretation for a similar site on Spring <br />Street, but because this site is entirely street - facing either on St. Mary Street or Peters <br />Avenue, staff is expecting all ground -floor commercial space and no ground -level <br />residential space. <br />Chair Allen inquired if this is in terms of the City's current standard. <br />Mr. Weinstein said yes, in terms of the current land use policy on this site. <br />Commissioner Balch recommended that the Commission look at the residential use <br />versus the commercial use in relation to the applicant's request for this residential <br />element in a commercial building left -over. He noted that it is discussed on page 15 of <br />the staff report, and it appears that staff is accordingly recommending a revised list of <br />uses as it currently prohibits residential use. He stated that he typically tries to link back <br />the condition with the staff report, and asked if this is just that it is excluded from the list <br />of uses and not that it is a prohibited use per se. <br />Mr. Luchini replied that is correct. <br />Commissioner Balch inquired if staff has an opinion about the applicant's request on the <br />residential element on the front commercial. <br />Mr. Luchini replied that staff spoke to the applicant about that in the last couple of <br />weeks, but staff feels that this is a mixed -use project which requires a whole lot of <br />legislative actions. He indicated that staff is of the opinion that it is a mixed -use project <br />and would like it to remain a mixed -use project that is more consistent with what the <br />Downtown Specific Plan is looking for in that area; hence, staff is less inclined to be <br />supportive of residential on that corner spot. <br />Commissioner O'Connor referred to the noise issue that was brought up by a couple of <br />speakers. He noted that the City has a noise ordinance that addresses noise on Peters <br />Avenue, which is at a lower standard than the rest of the Downtown because it <br />overflows to the residential area, such that if there were any outside music of any kind <br />on Peters Avenue, it would be way toned down or not amplified. <br />Commissioner Balch noted that this is obviously not a request for a use per se; the <br />allowed use is in here, but if someone wanted to come in and have amplified music, the <br />applicant would have to come in for some type of permit or business license. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 18, 2015 Page 16 of 34 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.