My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 052516
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
PC 052516
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2017 2:43:02 PM
Creation date
8/11/2017 2:31:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/25/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
Chair Ritter: All right. (D) Does the Planning Commission support parking facilities that <br />are shared by the office /retail space and upper apartment units? <br />Commissioner Brown: Yes. <br />Commissioner Nagler: But what do you think about the number? <br />Commissioner Balch: Oh well, that's the next question. <br />Commissioner Brown: He's giving me only one word questions. <br />Chair Ritter: Are they shared by the office /retail and upper unit apartments? <br />Commissioner Nagler: It sort of doesn't matter what the principle is. The question is <br />how many spaces do you need for all the use, right? And what's the right way to get to <br />the number of spaces whether you define it as melding the two or not, it sort of doesn't <br />matter to me. <br />Commissioner Balch: I would agree with Commissioner Nagler. It's an interesting way <br />the question was put because I think by the nature of it, they are going to be shared. <br />They're in the same building and they're accessing call it mixed use building 1. 1 don't <br />have a problem with it. I don't think it has to be designated similar to the Knuppe project <br />where I believe there was a handicapped stall that could be used for anyone, even <br />though it would say resident only. Now that I think about it, we did have that in at the <br />end, right? So I don't have a problem with it. <br />Chair Ritter: Yes. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: Yes. <br />Commissioner Allen: I'm torn on this and the reason I'm torn is for this specific project <br />on this site with a 300 - square -foot apartment building I think one car is fine. I always <br />worry about precedent. The Knuppe project we did not allow sharing. We absolutely did <br />not and so I always worry when we start bending rules because of the issue of <br />precedent. So to the degree that we did agree to this, I think we should be very, very <br />clear in the staff report and everything else about why we are doing it so that it doesn't <br />set a precedent just to be done loosely everywhere else. I worry about that. <br />Chair Ritter: (E) If not, would the Planning Commission support having the <br />applicant/developer pay in -lieu fees or would the Planning Commission prefer that the <br />parking requirements be met on -site? <br />Commissioner Allen: Well, again I said I would be open to that for this so then the in -lieu <br />fee would be okay or maybe even not required. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: They're not required. <br />Commissioner Allen: The last thing I want to mention about this parking is that I'd like to <br />see it be a little bit of a trade -off. If we're giving on the parking, then I think we ought to <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 25, 2016 Page 20 of 28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.