Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Cox addressed the City's initial request to provide for a <br />Fire Station in their development. He said they have done this <br />and now the~City isn't sure, based upon a study, it will be needed. <br />He said thi is nevertheless still shown on their plans. He <br />addressed f]~oor area ratio as shown on page 4 of the staff report <br />and that inlthe end six buildings will have an overall ratio of <br />55.40 with their proposed amendment which is pretty close to the <br />prevailing 50o for other developments in the area. He further <br />addressed page 5 stating that they do not intend to have medical <br />or dental offices in their development <br />No. 6: He $aid,he is bothered by the wording "maximur~, extent feasibae." <br />No. 14: He laid inasmuch as staff doesn't describe the criteria <br />set~''forth, he would like to add "subject to further review." <br />Chairperson,Getty~indicated she thought it was agreed the Drachman <br />method coup be used on the first building and reviewed at that <br />time. Mr. fox said that is what the Commission indicated but he <br />wasn't in total agreement. <br />Commissioned Doherty said he was at Valco where the system is <br />being parti~.lly used -- not being used in the entire development. <br />He said he didn't know if one could get a true picture of the <br />system .from one area of use. <br />Commissioned Wilson asked the developer if he would rather accept <br />Condition No. 14 or take 75,000 sq. ft. off of the building. <br />Mr. Cox responded that their choice is obvious, i.e. they would <br />accept the condition. <br />~~r. Cox indicated they have worked closely with Taubman and <br />they had great concerns regarding the parking and have entered <br />into an agreement whereby they would have to provide additional <br />parking if it becomes a problem. He explained possible locations <br />for above-ground level structures for parking. <br />Commissioner Doherty invited the Taubman people who we represent <br />in the audience to comment. Avner Naggar said this matter has <br />had much dialogue and their position was addressed in Mr. Cox's <br />comments. <br />No. 16: He addressed the City's policy of not allowing banks in <br />areas except in the C-R_District unless there is a bank. <br />within the downtown area of Pleasanton. He said the <br />property should now be considered C-R and that bI' having <br />it rezoned PUD didn't want to lose-the ability to have a <br />banl~ or banks. Assistant City Attorney indicated that <br />financial institutions could be listed as a conditional <br />use under th.e PUD. Commissioner Doherty said he wanted <br />to be fair to banks which come to the downtown area who <br />want to construct branches in the peripheral areas of <br />the City . <br />No. 17: Mro Cox indicated their plans for this project are to <br />establish a master property owner's association and he <br />would like to have this condition clarified. He <br />said he would like the option to handle the maintenance. <br />-4- <br />