My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
14
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2022
>
030122
>
14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2022 9:37:26 AM
Creation date
2/24/2022 9:34:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
3/1/2022
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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).
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Allen also agreed stating the need for consistency_ Commissioner Pace and <br />Commissioner Brown agreed with the others. <br />5. Does the Planning Commission support the proposed rooftop deck or second - <br />floor balcony? <br />Commissioner Pace stated he did not support the rooftop deck given Staff's recommendations. <br />He would be more likely to consider if there was no residential surrounding. He expressed <br />support for a balcony with appropriate screening. Commissioner Balch expressed his support <br />for the rooftop deck but raised concerns about objects placed detracting from the aesthetic. He <br />expressed preference that it be tucked away but was not opposed to the balcony. <br />Commissioner O'Connor agreed with Commissioner Balch, although he was not sure how it <br />would fit on a Craftsman's design. He indicated support of both the balcony and rooftop deck. <br />Commissioner Allen expressed support for the neighborly feel of the deck and balcony. Vice <br />Chair Brown agreed with the other Commissioners. <br />Discussion Point #3: <br />6. Aside from providing a vehicle turnaround and a trash enclosure, is the site <br />layout acceptable? <br />Commissioner Allen stated parking was the big issue and requested further information on why <br />the turnaround was being required. Commissioner Pace discussed the need for a better <br />understanding of parking and motive for requiring the turnaround. Commissioner O'Connor <br />expressed support for no turnaround as there seemed to be enough space. Commissioner <br />Balch stated that parking was driving design and he expressed concern the project would die <br />because of the overriding concern about parking. He also stated he did not support the <br />requirement for a turnaround and that the trash enclosure should be factored in. Vice Chair <br />Brown stated he could not conceive a different layout for the property but would hold <br />judgement to the final design. <br />Discussion Point #4: <br />7. Is there additional information needed to assist the Commission in -its decision on <br />the proposal? <br />Commissioner Allen requested feedback from the Pleasanton Downtown Association (PDA). <br />Commissioner Balch requested additional information on a single lift and tandem parking. He <br />asked if the applicant could reduce commercial on the front property to reduce the parking <br />requirements. Ms. Campbell explained that, under the DSP, there could be no net loss in <br />commercial square footage. <br />Commissioner Balch added that he respected the points of the other Commissioners and felt <br />the lift was a creative solution. He reiterated there was no parking structure, though money has <br />been collected for it, and additional parking in downtown was necessary. He expressed his <br />hope the applicant would come back with a design that addressed the majority's desires. <br />Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 August 26, 2020 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.