My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
12 ATTACHMENT 6
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2014
>
031814
>
12 ATTACHMENT 6
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/18/2015 3:28:43 PM
Creation date
3/12/2014 3:53:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
3/18/2014
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
12 ATTACHMENT 6
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
104
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
and part of the conclusion was that Pleasanton does not have larger apartment units <br /> that would serve a family. He explained that this would be a family that is not in a <br /> position to purchase a home, but there are a couple of children and the family really <br /> needs a three-bedroom unit. He indicated that there is plenty of need for one-bedroom <br /> units, and if this project were entirely one-bedroom, it would rent quickly but it would not <br /> necessarily serve a need for the community that has been identified in the City's <br /> Housing Element. <br /> Discussion Points: <br /> A: Would the Planning Commission support the exceptions noted above if the <br /> project were to move forward as proposed? <br /> Commissioner Allen stated that with respect to parking, if the adjacent property owner <br /> does support the plan, she is fine with the plan for the carports; however, if the adjacent <br /> property owner does not support it, then she would not be fine with it and the <br /> Commission would need to go over the parking issue. <br /> Commissioner Allen stated that she is fine with the roadway without knowing much <br /> about what the traffic impact is and how busy it is. She indicated that on the surface, it <br /> seems okay to have a narrower alley. <br /> Commissioner Olson indicated that he agreed with Commissioner Allen on both items. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor stated that he also agrees with both items. He added that if <br /> the property owner to the west would agree, he really does think that the carports would <br /> take up the same space as open parking but would certainly enhance the project and <br /> make it more desirable, which, in turn, would help or alleviate the concern of the <br /> neighbors regarding affordability, what the development is going to look like, and what <br /> kind of people are going to be attracted. He added that covered parking does enhance <br /> projects so he would like to see that. <br /> With respect to the alleyway, Commissioner O'Connor stated that he does not really <br /> have a problem with that. He indicated that there is one lighted intersection to get in <br /> and out and a main drive in and out, and he is fine with it. <br /> Commissioner Ritter stated that he agrees and is fine too. <br /> Commissioner Posson stated that he would prefer carports to open parking but that he <br /> would want to see agreement by both the adjacent property owner and through <br /> Hacienda's approval process. <br /> On the primary street design versus the alleyway, Commissioner Posson stated that his <br /> preference would be for the primary street design, but if there are some constraints on <br /> the development of the property that they can demonstrate as they get on the design, <br /> he would be fine with an alleyway. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 11, 2013 Page 17 of 24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.