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
Amos: It could change because of the rezoning. So if you're asking if he's having the <br />office designation and he left it strictly as office, he'd have a whole different parking ratio <br />for it. But if they're doing the rezoning for it, we were looking at it and trying to keep it as <br />close as possible to meeting the code requirements. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: Okay. I thought what was driving the two per apartment was <br />that it had the office overlay. <br />Weinstein: These parking standards are not unique to the Office District. They would <br />apply to any mixed use project throughout the city unless there were specific reduced <br />standards for that mixed use project. I think what is happening is that there is a core <br />area overlay that's located in this area but only applies to multi - family residentially <br />zoned properties and that core area overlay offers reduced parking requirements for <br />projects like this. <br />For instance, the parcel just to the north of this one that was looked at by the Planning <br />Commission several months ago: the Alok Damireddy project, that included apartment <br />units. Because those apartment units were in the Core Area Overlay District in a <br />residentially zoned district, the parking requirement was only one space per unit. So <br />again, just one parcel over has different parking regulations in our code compared to the <br />one that we're looking at here. <br />Commissioner Balch: Can I ask a quick follow -up? So on the Knuppe project which we <br />did up on Spring Street, we were looking at the size of the square footage of one use <br />versus the residential uses as well on that same parcel, right? That's not happening <br />here because of the mixed use element of the building? <br />Weinstein: Yes, I think what you're asking is maybe a land use question, like what's the <br />right ratio of commercial to..... <br />Commissioner Balch: .... yeah, so maybe it was because it was commercial because <br />when it came to workshop it was one size. It got expanded, and then that created a <br />parking issue as well because parking was based more on square footage of the <br />commercial use. But in this, the office use, that doesn't drive....? <br />Weinstein: It is actually because there's one per the code. If we're just looking at code <br />requirements right now, there's one space required for every 300 square feet of office. <br />So the bigger the office grows, the more parking is required and that's an important <br />consideration when thinking about design modifications of the site. If you increase a <br />land use, it's going to require more parking and it's a relatively constrained site so it can <br />be tough to fit the additional land use and the additional parking into one site. <br />Commissioner Balch: Okay, so then applying it to this particular site, then the square <br />footage calculation was done and that's where these nine spots came from, right? <br />Amos: Yes. <br />Commissioner Balch: Okay, thank you. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 25, 2016 Page 5 of 28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.