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
although staff is very sensitive to comments from the applicant's team that buildings <br />need to be occupied and that a vacant building does not enhance the Downtown. He <br />added that one of the costs essentially of this project is, as Mr. Luchini mentioned, <br />requiring a lot of legislative changes to policy documents. <br />Commissioner O'Connor inquired how this building could be re- occupied as a residence <br />if it lost its tenant; if the owner would have to come in and get a Conditional Use Permit <br />(CUP). <br />Mr. Weinstein said no; it would require a PUD modification, which is a pretty big step. <br />Commissioner O'Connor noted that there are a lot of offices down there that are vacant <br />right now, or when they go vacant, they stay vacant for quite a long time. <br />Commissioner Balch commented that the neighboring adjacent property is being <br />remodeled. <br />Chair Allen stated that in the business world, if there is a vacant retail space and it is a <br />slow economy, the rent drops and a hair salon or one that is sort of transitional that just <br />wants a temporary place is brought in. <br />Chair Allen stated that she would like to itemize the following issues for discussion by <br />the Commission: commercial versus residential in relation to the front house; parking; <br />building height; and the garage in front. <br />Parking <br />Chair Allen stated that she thinks there are five spaces, at a minimum, for which she <br />would like to require in -lieu parking fees, and she could even argue for seven: the <br />applicant is actually proposing to demolish two spaces; there are two existing on -site, <br />the existing garage and the space associated with the little white house; and the net of <br />three on- street parking spaces that are being lost. She stated that the project needs a <br />PUD and the project needs five spaces. She asked staff to confirm what the parking <br />demand need for the commercial space is, just using the standard methodology for <br />saying the commercial is "X" amount of square feet and it would expect to have four <br />cars. <br />Mr. Luchini replied that it would be four spaces for the approximately 1,200 square feet, <br />based on the standard of one parking space for every 300 square feet. <br />Chair Allen stated that one question asked when considering any commercial building is <br />how many people are going to visit, and based on the square footage of that property, <br />how many spots would be expected to be required; staff indicated that would be four <br />parking spots, and added to the three on- street parking spots lost to making space for <br />the driveways, would make seven parking spaces. <br />Commissioner Nagler inquired how many parking spaces currently exist on the street, <br />contiguous to this lot, that are unaffected by this construction and could be used for <br />commercial purpose. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 18, 2015 Page 18 of 34 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.