My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
_Minutes_March 24, 2021
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2021
>
05-12
>
_Minutes_March 24, 2021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/5/2021 1:23:16 PM
Creation date
5/5/2021 1:23:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
5/12/2021
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
San Pedro Square where there was a nice, inviting frontage to bring people into a less visible <br /> place from the street. He suggested additional commercial to support the citizens' desires. <br /> Commissioner Pace stated it was a transitional property between the Rose Hotel and the <br /> housing on St. John Street. He stated commercial was required based on the DSP and the <br /> very clear mandate given by the City over time. He suggested the owners and developers <br /> determine the project based on an economic standpoint, but transition was necessary and <br /> commercial was required. He stated the frontage should be more commercial than residential <br /> and he request appropriate parking for residential and ADUs. <br /> Chair Brown suggested Lots 10 and 11 have ground floor commercial and stated he would be <br /> in favor of considering an active use requirement even though it went beyond what the DSP <br /> required. He reminded the Commission that 725 Main Street was a unique <br /> commercial/residential space that was vacant. He stated he was looking for a special <br /> development but needed to balance the desire with the practicality of ensuring the space was <br /> sought after by the business community. He expressed concern with Lot 11, the commercial <br /> component, being a residential building with partitions inside not being a practical commercial <br /> space. He concurred that the developer was excellent, but he expected a greater commercial <br /> presence on the ground floor. <br /> Discussion Point #2: Parking, Setbacks, Height, and Site Layout <br /> A) Is the overall parking, site plan, and layout of the desired development Option 1 <br /> or 2, acceptable? <br /> Commissioner Allen reiterated the front facing should be a strong retail, courtyard-oriented <br /> space with open air and restaurants. She suggested the developer use mentioned benchmarks <br /> to get creative and come up with two or three options for the Planning Commission to vet <br /> instead of focusing on just one. She agreed with Commissioner Pace regarding ensuring <br /> adequate on-site parking. She discussed the vacant restaurant at 725 Main Street and <br /> suggested it was vacant because of its size. She stated people were looking for smaller <br /> spaces. She also mentioned that she talked with the City of Livermore's City Planner regarding <br /> the Blacksmith Square area and he explained those were small footprint retailers, which <br /> created less turnover and surmised that they were more successful. She discussed potential <br /> risks of not knowing how successful any design would be until it was developed. <br /> Commissioner Gaidos mentioned the Rose Hotel was very tall at three stories and the units to <br /> the west were all two stories. He stated he was not opposed to taller units or to development in <br /> the rear along the Arroyo but suggested avoiding units near the Pleasanton Hotel. He stated <br /> meeting the height of the hotel would not be completely offensive as long as there was open <br /> retail at the bottom. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor reiterated the need to fully park the project onsite due to limited street <br /> parking. He stated it should be at least 80-percent or better onsite parking. <br /> Commissioner Pace stated the economic viability was going to be left to the developer, while <br /> keeping in mind that the Commission would support commercial. He acknowledged it was in <br /> no one's interest to mandate commercial if it was going to be vacant. He expressed excitement <br /> about the possibility of the developer coming back with creative alternatives. <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 12 March 24, 2021 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.