PC 071002 - Laserfiche WebLink

,.-- 3. MEETING OPEN FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY ITEM WHICH IS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA There were none. 4. REVISIONS AND OMISSIONS TO THE AGENDA There were none. 5. MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION There were none. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS a. PDR-226, Jerry and Laura Raney Application for design review approval to construct a 4,2 1 8-square-foot office building located at 344 Division Street, modifying a previous design review approval for a 3,305-square-foot building. Zoning for the property is C-C (Central Commercial); Downtown Revitalization District. r' Mr. Swift presented the staff report, providing information on the original approval. At that time, it was made clear that the house would either be remodeled or rebuilt. The house has since been demolished, and the applicants' plan to rebuild according to the Planning Commission's approval had been modified. The Raneys would like to expand the building by 900 square feet to better accommodate their planned office uses in the building. The second story would be cantilevered over the planned parking at the rear of the building in order to accommodate the additional square footage. There were also minor modifications to the architectural design to accommodate the stairway to the second floor, as well as the second floor space. Mr. Swift advised that because a revised project plan was created, staff brought it before the Design Committee of the Pleasanton Downtown Association. Originally, the Committee had unanimously supported this project. When the Committee reviewed the current proposal on July 2, 2002, the vote was 3-3 on the applicants' modified plan. Their concerns had to do with the potential use of the building as a retail storefront, not as an office. They were more concerned with the front elevation than the fact that it would be larger. The applicants modified the front elevation to include larger front windows; otherwise, the building was essentially the same. ,- Mr. Swift advised that because the expansion increased the number of required parking spaces beyond what the applicant could provide, an in-lieu parking agreement would be required. The applicants had not included the larger building originally because the City Council had established a policy not to approve any in-lieu agreements until the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 10, 2002 Page 3