My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN010290
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CCMIN010290
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:34 AM
Creation date
11/3/1999 10:08:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
]3 <br /> <br />gone back so many times without knowing where to go, especially <br />since he has been through the process one before. He stated that <br />he has seen a lot of improvement over the original plans, and <br />suggested that the DRB be more succinct about what the problem was <br />so the applicant can come back and correct it. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr commented that the staff report has basic <br />contradictions. The DRB did not object to the height and the size <br />of the proposed apartment building, so the massiveness of the <br />structure is not really the issue. The report expressed concern <br />about setting a precedent in this location, but multiple family <br />housing in that location is something that the General Plan calls <br />for. She stated that the modifications made were consistent with <br />the guidelines for the downtown area. She indicated that she had <br />no problem with the design nor with having four units there. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes stated that the downtown area has a parking <br />problem at this time and asked staff how many In-Lieu Parking <br />Agreements the City is prepared to do. He inquired if it was an <br />unwritten City policy to have these agreements for anybody in the <br />downtown area who cannot meet the existing parking standards. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that the Code allows an In-Lieu Parking <br />Agreement if the City Council enters into the agreement. If the <br />Council chooses not to enter into agreement, it does not need to <br />be done. The Downtown Specific Plan assumes that the development <br />potential of the downtown properties is being maximized and that <br />parking is being consolidated in parking lots rather than having <br />each individual business provide its own parking spaces. The <br />staff would not recommend doing this for a major development or a <br />project that would create parking problems to the neighbors and <br />businesses in the area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes stated that it was his understanding that In-Lieu <br />Agreements apply to commercial/office property, not to residential <br />property, and inquired if this agreement is for a combination of <br />both uses? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that the Downtown Specific Plan allows <br />residential development in the downtown area. Although it was <br />assumed that In-Lieu Agreements would happen mostly in the <br />commercial areas, they could be done for residential projects too. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes commented that he felt it would not be necessary <br />to have the agreement if the project were scaled down. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that this would be difficult to do on this <br />site without sacrificing the necessary landscaping, which staff <br />considered of greater importance. However, it is possible that a <br />scaled-down project would allow for both landscaping and parking. <br /> <br /> -7- <br /> 1-2-90 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.