My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
07
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2016
>
092016
>
07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2016 1:08:00 PM
Creation date
9/15/2016 3:24:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
9/20/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
07
Document Relationships
07 ATTACHMENT 4
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\092016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
160
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
Commissioner Balch: They're both at that corner. <br />Beaudin: Can I just add, this is kind of a design issue and a functionality issue and I <br />think the primary reason we looked to push it back was that the Commission at the <br />workshop was looking at parking pretty critically and the idea of giving each unit a <br />minimum of two spaces and having two guest parking spaces was what we were trying <br />to achieve. The concern with leaving the garage at the front was that the drive - through <br />tandem space; the outdoor space is essentially just a side yard patio. So the idea of <br />moving the garage forward makes it real clear that there's a parking pad and a garage <br />and it's still a tandem configuration and it still involves what it involves with tandem but <br />that's the reason we picked one option over the other. <br />Commissioner Balch: If I could just make a quick statement and to echo what staff has <br />just said, the fact that its tandem already adds a complication that we typically don't like <br />and then on top of the tandem, to have the garage first and then the pad second, I <br />completely understand staffs position on that because we typically don't like tandem, or <br />at least I think that's what we've said in the past. We don't like tandem, and then if <br />you're adding tandem and adding this element that you have to go through, I mean, I <br />can't see the future but I think I can foresee problems here. I can also foresee that <br />someone's going to park in that little spot between 1 and 11 right at that little corner. <br />Chair Ritter: Like a boat? <br />Commissioner Balch: Well, like your car because you don't want to go through a garage <br />to get to the pad on the other side. So....I'll say to come out in a straw poll, I'm leaning <br />towards staff's recommendation. <br />Commissioner Brown: Can I suggest.... <br />Commissioner Balch: The garage is towards the back which would require you to drive <br />through it with this configuration and staff says you flop. <br />Commissioner Brown: The other thing I noticed though is the exit from the garage is on <br />the east side so you're exiting towards Building 10 or did I misread the.... <br />Commissioner Balch: It flipped. So when looking here, the door.... <br />Commissioner Brown: Oh, I see the door in the diagram. So if you were to move that <br />garage up to the pinch point, would you not move that door down? <br />Commissioner Balch: The garage isn't built, so yeah, the garage you could redesign so <br />your door is located at the southern end, or call that the west end side and then yes, <br />you presumably create a breezeway or something. <br />Commissioner Brown: In which case you're clear to get out of the garage with an <br />increase in two feet. <br />Commissioner Nagler: Well the distance between the two structures would remain the <br />same obviously. You'd just locate the door so you could easily access past the door. <br />EXCERPT: DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 24, 2016 Page 6 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.