13 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 5 Subject: PUD-118 Attachments: May 25 2016 Planning Commission Minutes.pdf; March 23 2016 Planning Commission Minutes.pdf From: Natalie Amos SUPPLEMENTAL ;MATERIAL Sent: Monday,July 11, 2016 6:29 PM Provided to the Planning Commission To:'Linda Garbarino' After Distribution of Packet Cc:Adam Weinstein; Gerry Beaudin Subject: RE: PUD-118 Date Distributed: 1 !) I (I t. g Hi, Linda. Thank you for your comments in two separate emails(below) regarding the Augustine Street proposal. Staff always appreciates the PHA's comments, time and efforts when reviewing Downtown projects. The project comments you provided will be sent to the Planning Commission for their consideration. I assure you that we make every effort to inform the Pleasanton Heritage Association (PHA), Downtown Improvement Association (DIA), and Pleasanton Downtown Association (PDA) on Downtown projects prior to formal recommendation/action. The Augustine Street project notification cards for this upcoming Planning Commission meeting were generated from the same notification list that was used for this project's Planning Commission Work Session in May. I'm not sure why the PHA didn't receive the Work Session notification card since it was the same list and we are confident you were mailed a notice. We didn't find it unusual for the PHA to not be in attendance at the Work Session since no members of the public attended the Work Session meeting to comment on the project (and PHA does not consistently attend Planning Commission meetings on Downtown projects). Please be assured that there was a significant amount of historical analysis completed by a reputable expert(previous work experience was with ARG, the firm that completed the City's Historical Resources Surveys) prior to making a recommendation on the disposition of the existing structures. The historic resources evaluation for the existing residence and accessory structure indicated that neither is a historic resource. The applicant also intends to incorporate the brick from the accessory structure into the project through pathways or other site features. The Planning Commission was asked specific questions regarding historic resource policies, land use consistency, parking, and building design at the Work Session meeting. The May 25, 2016, Planning Commission Work Session agenda (with staff report and related attachments) and audio of the meeting can be accessed at: http://www.citvofpleasantonca.gov/gov/depts/cd/planning/commission/minutes asp. You'll find that the questions asked of the Planning Commission included ones related to demolition of the on-site structures and design and materials of the proposed buildings. In-lieu of listening to the audio, I have attached the approved meeting minutes if that is more convenient. Site layout, land use consistency, massing, parking, and the architecture of this project have been thoroughly discussed over the last several months. Based on the feedback from the Planning Commission and staff, staff believes that the applicant has designed the project such that it is in keeping with the goals, programs, and policies of the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan and Downtown Design Guidelines. You reference several policies in the Downtown Specific Plan and Downtown Design Guidelines related to building materials, architectural style, and mixed uses. In general, we believe that the traditional architecture and building materials proposed here are consistent with the spirit of these governing documents because the building design includes many building elements that evoke historic architecture in Downtown, including prominent porches, front and side gables, and board and batten siding. Although the buildings contain metal elements, we believe these elements are in line with the Guidelines' directive to use high-quality building materials. For instance, metal standing seam roofing, while not a traditional building material in Downtown, is much