PC 082620 - Laserfiche WebLink

MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S REVIEW/ACTION/INFORMATION 6. Reports from Meetings Attended (e.g., Committee, Task Force, etc.) Commissioner Balch reported he attended the virtual Tri-Valley Mayor's Summit; Gardening with Natives; and Special Police Reform meeting, with the next meeting on September 17, 2020. 7. Future Planning Calendar Ms. Denis gave a brief overview of future items for the Commission's review. MATTERS INITIATED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS Commissioner Allen inquired about story poles erected on Ray Street. Ms. Denis explained the renovation, and addition project applied for on 288 Ray Street. Commissioner Balch requested a presentation from City Traffic Engineer Mike Tassano on the Chick-Fil-A drive-thru and funds from Caltrans for the 1-680 Stoneridge Drive freeway on-ramp, confirming funds were still allocated to Pleasanton given the State's current budget crisis. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Brown adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, caAiw4__ /614/1; h6lifilLi Stefanie Ananthan Recording Secretary Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 August 26, 2020 le turnaround and a trash enclosure, is the site layout acceptable? Commissioner Allen stated parking was the big issue and requested further information on why the turnaround was being required. Commissioner Pace discussed the need for a better understanding of parking and motive for requiring the turnaround. Commissioner O'Connor expressed support for no turnaround as there seemed to be enough space. Commissioner Balch stated that parking was driving design and he expressed concern the project would die because of the overriding concern about parking. He also stated he did not support the requirement for a turnaround and that the trash enclosure should be factored in. Vice Chair Brown stated he could not conceive a different layout for the property but would hold judgement to the final design. Discussion Point #4: 7. Is there additional information needed to assist the Commission in its decision on the proposal? Commissioner Allen requested feedback from the Pleasanton Downtown Association (PDA). Commissioner Balch requested additional information on a single lift and tandem parking. He asked if the applicant could reduce commercial on the front property to reduce the parking requirements. Ms. Campbell explained that, under the DSP, there could be no net loss in commercial square footage. Commissioner Balch added that he respected the points of the other Commissioners and felt the lift was a creative solution. He reiterated there was no parking structure, though money has been collected for it, and additional parking in downtown was necessary. He expressed his hope the applicant would come back with a design that addressed the majority's desires. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 August 26, 2020 nning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 August 26, 2020 Unit (ADU). Ms. Clark explained it was not an accessory dwelling to a residential building on site. Commissioner Balch requested further clarification on what configurations would be considered ground floor residential. Ms. Clark explained a story or two above a garage was considered ground floor residential. A residential unit above a commercial would not be considered ground floor residential or be subject to those related policy requirements. Commissioner Balch pointed out page 53 of the DSP. Ms. Clark suggested any effort to circumvent the ground floor residential parking requirement (such as elevating the unit, would Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 August 26, 2020