PC 02/24/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

spoke in opposition to having the wood trellis installed due to impacts of patrons of the business not being able to sit in a sunny area. She further commented she would enjoy the visual impacts of roses and an oak tree. In conclusion, she requested that the applicants' request for modifications be approved. Craig Scharton, 235 Main Street, stated he is representing the Design and Beautification Committee. He noted that the applicants were not present at the Design Committee meeting to provide their input. He noted that a memorandum was sent to the Planning Commission outlining the Committee's opinions on the modifications. He noted that the Committee is not against modifications but that the Planning Commission should approve the highest quality design possible for a project to enhance the downtown area, that detail is an important enhancement to downtown Pleasanton. He stated that the brick breaks up the fence and that the arbor makes the site more interesting. Window detailing also makes the building more interesting and reflects quality. He felt that the presence of people makes Downtown more safe and it's better for the site to be open and relate to the street. Gary Fletcher, 4042 Muirwood Drive, provided an overview of the members of the Design and Beautification Committee and noted their diversity. He stated that the Committee examined issues relating to the trellis, the fence, and the brick. He noted that the Committee determined that a six-foot fence was not as aesthetically pleasing as a four-and-a- half foot fence with brick. He expressed concern with projects going forward without receiving prior approval by the City. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Cooper, he noted that the Commission should approve the window treatment with the highest quality material, but that to him, the windows were less important then the trellis. Jack Dove, 3260 Vineyard Avenue, noted he is speaking on behalf of several members of the Design and Beautification Committee. He provided background information relating to the approval of the application. He expressed concern with modifications being made to the design plans after the design was already approved. He believes that wood buildings should have trim and the lack of trim makes a big difference. Paul Dejamatt, 147 Old Bemal Avenue, spoke in support of the Planning Commission approving the three modification requests of the applicant. He noted that this application process was started in 1995. He further noted that he is a member of the Downtown Association and his opinions are not accurately reflected by the Design and Beautification Committee. He commented on the number of children who are patrons of the business and commented on the safety issues incurred by requiring the applicant to install a gate. He further noted that the oak tree would be aesthetically pleasing. Linda Adams readdressed the Commission and inquired as to the members qualifications for the Design and Beautification Committee. Discussion ensued relating to the qualifications necessary to serve on the Design and Beautification Committee. Diane Churka readdressed the Commission and reiterated her safety concerns relating to children if a gate is required. She stated this is a family-friendly business and that a large number of patrons also bring their dogs and that the front porch has been deemed the dog watering area. She stated that the applicants have not proceeded with work knowingly without permission and that the applicants did not go forward with the intent of ignoring laws. She stated that the modified windows are more expensive than the originally approved windows. She further noted that the applicant was not invited to attend the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 February 24, 1999