01 - Laserfiche WebLink

types of setbacks were envisioned in the Downtown Specific Plan. The architectural themes include large storefront windows to tempt patronage on Spring Street where there are also a notable number of Mission Revival style homes. The project features gabled rooflines, smooth cement, decorative tile work and also into the townhouse residential portion of the project. He noted that 3 story buildings are allowed Downtown and that all of the proposed buildings are less than 30 feet in height. Planning Manager Weinstein reported the City had been working with the applicant since May 2014 and in August 2015 the applicant had made requested changes to the project including expanding the commercial use, the front set back was increased to 6 feet, and one of the 3-bedroom townhouse units was converted to an apartment (less square footage). The overall parking was reduced from 20 to 13 spaces by reducing residential parking and dedicating 4 for commercial use. The project has less massing than what is allowable in the Downtown area. The tandem parking is the only non-allowable feature. Planning Manager Weinstein described the parking requirements described in the Municipal Code and noted that the Planning Commission did not agree with staffs calculations for parking in-lieu fees. Residential parking was described for the core overlay district and is achieved through tandem parking. Tandem parking is not favored, however, it can work in the Downtown situation where activity can be supported without a car. . Planning Manager Weinstein described the high quality design which mitigates the massing and the Mission Revival style building to mirror what already exists Downtown. He reviewed requirement of the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. The commercial space meets the intent of the Downtown Commercial Specific Plan, including the reuse of vacant parcels and residential space on the upper floors of buildings. At this time, there has been no parking assessments done, however, in the future this project could be part of a Downtown parking assessment. Planning Manager Weinstein noted that positive and negative comments regarding the project have been received, with the negative comments focusing on the overall massing, insufficient parking, and the setback. The Pleasanton Downtown Association has written a letter of opposition to the project citing concerns regarding parking and setbacks. On December 9, 2015, the Planning Commission voted (3 - 2, Allen and O'Connor "no") to support the project with the inclusion of an 8-foot wall on the northern property line. The project has brought to light the diversity of opinion and staff has taken suggestions from what was learned for project improvements and explored many alternatives to address concerns including smaller residential units, moving the project back, and reconfiguring. Mayor Thorne expressed concerns that tenants will complain about noise in the Downtown area and referenced the Downtown Vitality Plan. Director of Community Development Gerry Beaudin stated Condition 13A describes the kinds of noise activity and impacts and that disclosure of such is a requirement for the leasing of properties. Staff is having ongoing conversations with the Pleasanton Downtown Association, surrounding property owners, and managers. The required disclosure is not going to prevent complaints. Due to the unique nature of the Downtown environment, staff believes potential tenants will be seeking out the environment the Downtown provides and will understand the noise that comes with it. Mayor Thome inquired how the property owner will protect against multiple families living in one unit. In response to Vice Mayor Narum, Director of Community Development Beaudin stated that any separation of units would require that the property owner would have to come back before the Council to approve the new map. City Council Minutes Page 5 of 12 February 2,2016