PC 032311 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pentin stated that he would need to see the designs as he cannot tell from the drawings what the building will look like. He noted that the building would be far enough off of Spring Street. He expressed concern about the design fitting the area; however, knowing Mr. Huff's experience in Pleasanton, he would be surprised if anything did not fit. He indicated that he was fine at this time and would wait for the application to come before the Commission. Commissioner Blank stated that the building design is all right at this time but that it is difficult to see without having the actual design on hand. He noted that Spring Street is an eclectic street in terms of design, and he thinks that what is there now is within the ballpark. He reiterated that he would like to see colored visualizations to determine what the building really looks like. Commissioner Pearce stated that she was intrigued that Mr. Huff could walk the Commissioners down Spring Street and see on a modified Mission Revival house the different elements popping up in different houses. She suggested that for the Commissioners' edification on the elements, in lieu of a walking tour, pictures of the houses be included in the staff report so everybody could see the different kinds of elements and interpretation that match the site, and that the heritage of the site is being respected. She acknowledged Commissioner Olson's comments about the Pilates studio, but noted that the studio is a low -line one -story building, while what is being proposed is bigger. She indicated that if the Commissioners are amenable, she would like to see the different elements in the houses to make sure the elements are included in the proposed home, even if it might not be as easily seen as if they were on Spring Street. Chair Narum agreed that it is a great idea to request Mr. Huff to provide a "cheat sheet" to provide the elements of the Mission Revival. She commented that there must be a way of scaling back and reducing the massing on the third floor, perhaps by inserting the dormers versus having them sticking out from the roof. She indicated that she does not think Item 1a of the DTSP really applies to this building since it will be located at the rear of property and pedestrians will not be walking by this building. She noted that this may be one of the items that need to be updated to clarify that section a bit more. She stated that she is generally fine with the design and that it falls within what Margene Rivara explained at a previous meeting regarding being flexible and allowing new design to tie back to these architectural characteristics. 4. Are the proposed modifications to the site plan and parking appropriate? Commissioner Pearce commented that the different discussions on parking were intriguing. She indicated that she would like to see the different ways that parking can work on the site. She noted that Mr. Huff had mentioned his concern regarding the awkward nature of one of the spaces. Chair Narum inquired how the Commissioners felt about modifying the parking by locating the spaces on the east side of the property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 23, 2011 Page 11 of 21