My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
15
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2017
>
011717
>
15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2017 4:34:02 PM
Creation date
1/11/2017 11:06:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
1/17/2017
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
15
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
184
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
rights And the feeling is that downtown ground floor is something unique and it's <br /> something very important to maintain vitality We visited other jurisdictions recently <br /> They've talked to us about some of the things they regret doing, some of which are <br /> putting non-active uses in on the ground floor and not being able to get them out We've <br /> seen a few examples of that in Downtown Pleasanton recently so we did draft code <br /> language that does attempt to require a process for owners and businesses that want to <br /> put non-retail, non-restaurant uses on the ground floor And the idea there was that it <br /> was a check, nght7 What kind of use are you trying to put into a ground floor space in a <br /> downtown and it was going to be the minor use permit process so it was quicker and <br /> cheaper but it was still a check and a public process and it let us vet it in a more <br /> comprehensive way Pretty strong reactions on both sides and what we ultimately have <br /> come to the conclusion is that the Downtown Specific Plan update is probably a better <br /> conversation to have This would have been a middle step if it gets taken at all, and so <br /> it's not off the table It's up here tonight You've got the language in the materials and <br /> we're happy to take comment on If it's something the Planning Commission wants us to <br /> pursue, then it's on the table <br /> Commissioner Allen So I will just say I totally agree with the other comments that are <br /> coming through I was going to recommend that we take that off of the table and bring it <br /> in the DSP, not only just the item you mentioned in terms of ground floor but also you <br /> had some other modifications specific to downtown in your write-up on page 8 Those <br /> include an addition to the first floor It also included a definition of multi-use, and I think <br /> we need to think about because you say something about allowing multi-use or mixed <br /> use And I think it's appropriate in the downtown to begin thinking about what is mixed <br /> use Is 5% office or retail and 95% housing on a site? Is that mixed use? Are we <br /> together here? Gerry, do you follow me? <br /> Beaudin Yes <br /> Commissioner Allen I think that whole question of what's mixed use, we really need to <br /> define it and define maybe one area downtown that might even have a different ratio <br /> potentially of mixed use than another One could be more heavily residentially oriented <br /> mixed use and another one could be more heavily oriented commercial retail <br /> Commissioner Nagler Or it could be that you're more granular in defining <br /> Commissioner Allen Yeah, where it's important, where you'd want to drive certain <br /> pedestrian flavor or not <br /> Commissioner Nagler So you have different labels for different you know, like the <br /> Carey project across the street from City Hall versus <br /> Commissioner Allen downtown Main Street <br /> Commissioner Nagler Exactly <br /> Commissioner Allen Right <br /> EXCERPT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 31, 2016 Page 24 of 25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.