01 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to Councilmember Pentin, Director of Community Development Beaudin stated that if there were any changes in rental parking they would have to amend the PUD and evaluate the project on the whole at that time. Councilmember Brown inquired regarding the policy of giving parking credit for the destruction of buildings. Staff responded that the policy was designed to encourage redevelopment Downtown and only applies to only the Downtown area. There are some buildings which have not aged very well and need to be replaced. The Downtown parking is constrained. Buildings need replacement and it is hard to accommodate parking in tight places. Councilmember Brown confirmed that the approximate parking in-lieu fee per space for this project is $19,000. She also felt that the proposed tandem parking would result in tenants moving their parking to the street, further impacting parking in the Downtown area. Staff commented that there are 3-hour restrictions for parking on Spring Street and there is also a proposed 20-foot drive aisle to jockey cars within the subject site. In response to Councilmember Brown, staff noted that if the project is meeting the expectations of Council and the community in regard to the massing, there is ability within the existing Code and policies to consider a project that goes higher than 30 feet. Mayor Thome opened the public hearing. Galen Grant, applicant, thanked the staff for their work and for their initial feedback. A PowerPoint was presented which highlighted the architectural features of the project which meets the City's intent for retail and commercial in a neighborhood friendly way. The resemblance of the building and the structure next to it was inspired by others on Spring Street and Main Street to the west. Every unit has three decks to encourage an indoor/outdoor living experience and they softened the elevations and provided for the kinds of articulation that would justify allowing a 3-story structure. Mr. Galen further elaborated on project features including the commercial and retail space tile accents, awnings, arched windows, articulated parapets, and Mission Revival details. The western facing view shows the ground drops off significantly and they have created a beautiful fence that separates while also rebuilding the retaining wall. The neighbors requested an 8-foot wall and the applicant will accommodate a 6 or 8-foot wall, depending on the Council's desires. The Knuppe family (the property owners) would prefer all residential, however the City wants the mixed-use in the Downtown area. This building is designed to be part of the retail community and wants to feel like a commercial building. To that end, it wants a sense of mass to reflect all of the two story massing on Main Street. He described the high-end pavers and landscaping that would be installed in the project. Although the Code allows building all the way up to the property line, they are not doing that. They have pushed the setback to 6 feet. The commercial was intended to be a law office. The overall height of the 3 story units is essentially the height of the commercial building and there is also a deck in front that is a commitment to livability. The Knuppe's intent was to have the units rented as executive homes. Mr. Galen further explained other architectural features including backside undulations and glass for commercial space. He spoke to various agencies and the landscaping will be very rich. He would appreciate consideration of the 3 car credit to the in-lieu fee and that they do conform to the requirement in the Ordinance. They want to be a good neighbor and are proud of the project as proposed. Laura Olsen, representing the Pleasanton Downtown Association, stated that they do not want this project on this parcel. It is designed nicely; however the location is not beneficial. Staff is working with an outdated Downtown Specific Plan and they want to see the document updated with more clarity and with less confusion. She expressed concerns about the proposed project's parking and traffic impacts and was anticipating the updated traffic study. City Council Minutes Page 6 of 12 February 2,2016