My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 071316
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
PC 071316
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2017 2:45:49 PM
Creation date
8/11/2017 2:35:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/13/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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
Commissioner Balch: Well, this is super affordable because there's not much space. <br />Chair Ritter: And that would be meeting that requirement. <br />Commissioner Balch: I do think, and I don't want to state it per se, but I like the idea as <br />Commissioner Allen brought up if the parking is such a concern, I like the idea of <br />creating an additional on -site spot. I really do to address our concern with the mixed <br />use. I don't know if we fully have addressed my comment about the mixed use being <br />residential only though. I don't know if we were there. It sounded like maybe you were <br />not there with them. I don't know, but I want to just continue to keep that because that's <br />what it's all about. In staff's resolutions it basically says that the mixed use on <br />Residence 1 shall be only non - residential. I completely want to add water or weight to <br />what Commissioner Allen said; that if you keep it where it has to be office, it does put us <br />over the 10 %. 1 have a struggle with that requirement both ways. <br />Commissioner Allen: Where do other people come out on Jack's last comment about <br />requiring Residence 1 to have that office be office versus not? Where do you two come <br />out on that? <br />Chair Ritter: So if it is an office, you lose a space? <br />Commissioner Nagler: Or you gain a space? <br />Commissioner Balch: Well, in the workshop it was all residential and Commissioner <br />Nagler and I were on the fence that said basically, we really like the design and staff <br />recommended that maybe there's a mixed use solution that wouldn't necessarily tick <br />over the odometer on another spot, right? Well, they designed it for that, but along <br />came a requirement that it's not for residential use. It's got to be for an office or mixed <br />use. <br />Chair Ritter: They said it was flexible though. <br />Commissioner Balch: Well not now because the condition would make it.... <br />Chair Ritter:... so if we made it flexible? <br />Commissioner Balch: Therein lies the discussion. Do you want someone to have a <br />bedroom in that room or not is really what you need to answer. <br />Commissioner Nagler: So the issue is Commissioner Allen is pointing out that if it ends <br />up residential, this problem should have required a General Plan Amendment. <br />Commissioner Allen: Maybe you should check with Julie on that, but that's my point. It's <br />less than 10% and it's really a residential project if you don't do much more. <br />Commissioner Balch: But if you kick it to office for example, you kick your parking up <br />possibly another notch. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2016 Page 28 of 38 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.