My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
12
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2017
>
030717
>
12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/1/2017 3:00:33 PM
Creation date
3/1/2017 9:51:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
3/7/2017
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
12
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
179
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
Development Standards and Design Guidelines <br /> Commissioner Pearce inquired what the process would be for deciding what street <br /> design to use. She requested that the Commission have a conversation about how to <br /> decide what to do in this section. <br /> Mr. Dolan stated that there are two options that are approvable, and the Council can <br /> either leave an option open or pick one. He added that staff will probably get more input <br /> from BRE or W.P. Carey. He indicated that the second option requires less movement <br /> of the curb and provides a little more land to use for building, but it takes away land from <br /> parking. He noted that there should not be any land issue in the sense that whatever <br /> space is lost to put in a building is gained to put in parking; both have to be done. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor inquired if the angled parking is designed for the retail. <br /> Mr. Dolan replied that it is not necessarily specified, but it surely counts because it is <br /> very convenient to retail, to the residential that would be right there, and to any Live/Live <br /> or Live/Work that ultimately transitions. He added that with 5,000 square feet of retail <br /> and some Live/Live there, it would also be logical for guest parking for the entire project. <br /> Mr. Dolan stated that under the old scenario, BRE would likely come first on Parcel 2, <br /> and it would build no retail as this is not required. He noted that Parcel 1 comes next <br /> with 5,000-square-foot minimum retail, and then the Roche property comes last, and if <br /> the 5,000 square feet of required retail is still there, it would be built then. <br /> Commissioner Narum inquired how Option Al b. could go forward, given the traffic <br /> safety analysis presented earlier by Mr. Tassano. She further inquired if the <br /> Commission would need to add some language regarding mitigating it. <br /> Mr. Dolan indicated that Mr. Tassano has some concerns about Option Alb which he <br /> has outlined. He stated that there are probably some variations in between the two <br /> options, but the backing-up issue needs to be addressed for safety reasons. <br /> Mr. Dolan stated that what it comes down to is what would be a valuable opinion to <br /> share with the Council. He noted that the study shows that Option Al a works <br /> beautifully. He added that those on the Task Force were able see a video of what that <br /> area would be like during PM peak hours, which showed very light traffic. He indicated <br /> that there is a lot of capacity out there and that Option Ala. will work. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor inquired if the lanes could be one lane going one direction and <br /> the two lanes the opposite direction as depicted in Option Ala. but configured as it is in <br /> Option Alb. without a separate median but with a curb or something similar <br /> Commissioner Blank stated that one of the problems here is that the Commission just <br /> got the report and has not had the chance to digest it. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 26, 2011 Page 32 of 40 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.