My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 062619
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2019
>
PC 062619
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2019 6:08:56 PM
Creation date
8/15/2019 6:08:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/26/2019
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
Residential Visibility: <br /> Mr. Beaudin stated this item ties into corner lots, minimizing the visibility of residential uses in <br /> the downtown and how the City goes about doing that. The question is whether it is enough to <br /> have a general policy or a general policy with more specifics based on the geography of sites. <br /> Commissioner Brown said he thinks the Planning Commission should also discuss this as it <br /> relates to the MU-T District because the pre-February Task Force meeting recommendation to <br /> feathering heights resulted in having the downtown at 40 feet, then Peters at 36 feet and <br /> residential at 30 feet. He liked this from a visibility perspective. When the City Council opted in <br /> and reasserted it was more in favor of the 36 feet/125 FAR versus the 40 feet/300 FAR, from <br /> his perspective, the main purpose of that was to feather the residential into the commercial and <br /> it was in keeping with the existing character of the downtown. <br /> He recognized arguments around vitality but, at the end of the day they are establishing the <br /> opportunity for Peters Avenue to become a transitional district and what is there is not <br /> 40 feet/300 FAR. If it is changed to 40 feet/300 FAR, he thinks this encourages a different kind <br /> of thought than the 36 feet/125 FAR. <br /> Commissioner Ritter asked about the 36 feet/300 FAR, noting it would be a mix of both to give <br /> some options on the feathering. <br /> Commissioner Brown said he did not think 36 feet/300 FAR made sense in encouraging a <br /> different product. <br /> Chair Allen agreed it did not make sense. It is currently designated as Office which is 30 feet <br /> and well below 100 FAR. It is increasing what the standards are today for the properties along <br /> here that are designated as Office. <br /> Commissioner Brown concurred and said this is an opportunity to enhance the downtown and <br /> be a transitional district between residential and commercial, and to encourage a different type <br /> of product that feathers the two and allows for revitalization of the downtown. He thinks <br /> 36 feet/125 FAR still does that, whereas at 40 feet/300 FAR, they are just extending the <br /> downtown commercial into Peters Avenue and he was not sure he was in agreement with that. <br /> Commissioner Ritter inquired whether there were currently existing buildings above 36-feet in <br /> the Mixed-Use Transitional area. <br /> Mr. Beaudin said the West Angela/Peters Avenue townhouses are 34 feet, 6 inches in height. <br /> The St. Mary's Street project is 36 feet tall. The other two things that fall into this residential <br /> visibility category are the story poles and visual simulations which could be added to <br /> discussion. <br /> Commissioner Brown proposed a motion that the Planning Commission recommend the City <br /> Council's recommendation around just the Mixed Use Transitional being 36 feet/125 maximum <br /> FAR. <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 27 June 26, 2019 <br />lanning process and he voiced concerns with this and noted that we are <br /> simply adding to the list of requirements for homeowners and developers. He indicated he <br /> does not want to over-regulate and recommended breaking down the topics more. <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 27 June 26, 2019 <br />ntial does not already exist since two properties side <br /> by side could have very different requirements. He also asked that outdoor seating be a <br /> Zoning Administrator (ZA) decision and not a Planning Commission decision. Lastly, requiring <br /> commercial to wrap around the corner seems like overkill where this is an issue that can be <br /> resolved by the ZA. <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 27 June 26, 2019 <br />ne 26, 2019 <br />