PC 082615 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Ritter stated that he thinks it seems just a little large for that size lot for parking and it looked like you could park two cars in the garage and then two cars in front of the garage and still have people driving in and out. He noted that it seemed tight for the space and should be set back a little to match the building that it is going to be sitting next to, or swap it to the east side. He indicated that the building fits in the DTSP use, and there are other residential buildings Downtown with apartments above retail. Commissioner Piper stated that she is very comfortable with both commercial and residential; she likes that idea and thinks that it supports what Downtown is looking for. She indicated that she also likes the residential units being so close to Downtown and does not have a problem with it. She added that the drawing is very attractive and that she loves all of the windows; however, she does not like the three -story idea in the Downtown, although it does not appear to look like a three -story the way they have designed it. She noted that she is very much in favor of pushing the building back; it feels like Mr. Kearns' property is dwarfed. She stated that looking down that street, it feels like the vitality will be cut off right there and will not go farther into the Downtown than that particular project. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he did not address the residential portion of the project and said that it is appropriate for the remainder of the site to be residential. Like Commissioner Piper, he indicated that he is not a big fan of three stories; it is taller than the commercial building and appears like it actually rises from the street. Commissioner Nagler stated that the commercial space is exactly what the DTSP is asking for: a creative expansion of retail, especially on the side street; a mixed -use that is also interesting and brings a sort of additional intriguing personality to the Downtown. He indicated that he thinks the idea suggested of relocating the retail to the other side of the property would not work only because in order for this retail to work, it has to be pretty visible to Main Street or it would take away from the viability of it as a retail space. Commissioner Nagler stated that setting the building back some would absolutely help the rest of the visibility of Spring Street and including the building on Main Street that comes up Spring Street. He indicated that it would still be visible to Main Street, but would also create a better view of the rest of the street. Commissioner Nagler stated that the residential building itself is gorgeous and interesting; however, the massing is actually too much for this space. Chair Allen stated that she likes the commercial office building design and agrees with the setback. She indicated, however, that she had a different feeling than others about the residential and the degree of residential, and that is because after reading the DTSP, it struck her that a PUD application is being created to provide relief from a site development and parking standards that are prescribed by the underlying CC zoning District in the Pleasanton Municipal Code. She indicated that she is open to creating PUDs in certain cases, such as the Ponderosa project in the old trailer park, but this does not feel really right to her to break the standards because it is right next door to Main Street, and if it were on Main Street, it would be under even more guidelines. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 26, 2015 Page 35 of 43