My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 052108 Special Mtg
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
PC 052108 Special Mtg
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:37:21 PM
Creation date
11/26/2008 11:57:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/21/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 052108
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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 Narum wished to confirm that the Commissioners had referred to the rear <br />setbacks on the east side. Commissioner O'Connor noted that he was concerned about all of the <br />rear setbacks. <br />3. Guest Parkin <br />Commissioner Narum noted that this was a difficult issue and that in her neighborhood, all four <br />houses in the cul-de-sac had teenagers who drive. She believed that if the size of the houses <br />were to be reduced or if one or two houses were removed, she would like to see several parking <br />spots specifically for guest parking. She noted that many of the neighbors in the houses fronting <br />Stanley Boulevard had "no parking" signs in front of them and that the parking on the south side <br />of Stanley Boulevard that will be eliminated will further exacerbate the current parking problem. <br />Commissioner Olson believed that guest parking was an issue and that the Comcast truck, for <br />instance, could parkin the driveway on a service call. He noted that visitors would not be able to <br />find a place to park if the homeowner's garage was filled with stored items. He stated that he <br />believed there should be some spaces available in the development for guest parking but was unsure <br />how that would be accomplished. <br />Commissioner Fox stated that she did not believe the guest parking situation was very good and <br />suggested that there be at least one guest parking place per unit. She noted that staff had requested <br />in another high density development that guest parking spaces in the driveway area be provided. <br />She stated that it was important to have consistency in the planning process and that guest parking <br />consistent with other projects should be included. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that he did not believe there was enough on-site guest parking but <br />was unsure about the appropriate number. He noted that if there were fewer units, there would be <br />more room for guest parking and more space between units. He added that he did not believe <br />parking would be an issue for this development before he found out that half of the parking on <br />Stanley Boulevard would be taken away, which exacerbated the problem. <br />Chair Blank stated that parking was a major issue and that he also lived on a cul-de-sac. He noted <br />that most houses had teenagers who drove, that many of the houses could fit only one car in the <br />garage, and that most people parked in the driveway. He noted that the homes with teenagers <br />parked two cars in the driveway and two cars in the street. He stated that there should be guest <br />parking. <br />Would the proposed open space for the development and for each home be acceptable? <br />Commissioner O'Connor did not have a problem with having private lots with no common open <br />space. He would like to see the larger setback, specifically in the rear yard. He noted that there <br />should be a bigger setback, particularly near the townhome development and against the railroad <br />track. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 15 of 26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.