My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 03/11/81
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1981
>
PC 03/11/81
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:20:42 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 9:29:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/11/1981
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 03/11/81
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
Commissioner Jamieson then inquired about broadening the tax base. <br />Chairperson Wilson said he has previously asked Mr. Walker, City Manager, <br />how much revenue would be generated per year by a 40,000,000 building <br />and Mr. Walker had said about $102,000 per year. Discussion then ensued <br />about Conditions 1 through 4 of the staff report. Commissioner Doherty <br />addressed Condition No. 4 stating that the staff and applicant have <br />recognized there is an uncertain cost in setting up an assessment <br />district. <br />Chairperson Wilson said that buildings which come before the Planning <br />Commission on percentage of coverage are usually based on the net <br />acreage. <br />Mr. Harris explained. Chairperson Wilson said that concerning <br />Condition No. 4 he doesn't object to increasing the floor space to over <br />what was ever granted previously but he hasn't had time to analyze this <br />where the developer wants to go to a multi story building and garage; <br />such a case would seem to have a higher percentage of floor space. He <br />said staff should analyze this matter. Discussion then ensued between <br />Chairperson Wilson and Mr. Harris regarding parking structures, traffic <br />generation and assessment districts. <br />Concerning Condition No. 5, Chairperson Wilson stated that when the <br />fire people were at the joint meeting, they stated that the fire equip- <br />ment would handle 5 stories or 65 feet. Mr. Warnick confirmed that this <br />was said. <br />Commissioner Jamieson said he doesn't feel high rises are needed for <br />identification and that he feels it would probably be economically <br />feasible to develop this project with three stories as others have done <br />so as witnessed by the Commission on a recent tour of business parks <br />in other areas. <br />Commissioner Doherty said that he feels that fire protection could be <br />satisfied with a maximum 5 story building. Commissioner Getty agreed <br />with Commissioner Doherty's statement, i.e. 5 stories, 65 feet maximum <br />height limitation. Commissioner Lindsey said he is not comfortable <br />with 14 stories. He said he has no problem with 5 stories. Chairperson <br />Wilson said he supports 4-story maximum building height. <br />Commissioner Lindsey addressed Condition No. 6 and said he had a <br />problem agreeing with a 33' setback on the Hopyard Road portion of <br />the development. Commissioner Jamieson supported this concern. <br />Commissioner Getty suggested that perhaps this could be addressed at <br />the Design Review Board stage. They then confirmed the minimum set- <br />back of Streets A through D. Chairperson Wilson inquired about the <br />location of the PSE with regard to the 50' and 33' easements. Mr. <br />Harris explained. <br />Chairperson Wilson polled the Commission concerning a 50' setback on <br />Hopyard. Commissioner Lindsey said it would be a bad precedent not <br />to require it now as it is anticipated Hopyard would be a main entrance <br />to the City. He said he is not opposed to a 33' setback on Stoneridge. <br />-5- <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.