Laserfiche WebLink
ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />AYES: Commissioners Allen, Balch, O'Connor, Piper, and Ritter <br />NOES: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />RECUSED: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />Resolution No. PC- 2015 -42 approving Case P15 -0577 was entered and adopted as <br />motioned. <br />a. PUD -109, H. James Knuppe <br />Applications at 273 Spring Street for: (1) a certificate of <br />appropriateness to demolish the existing 910 - square -foot single -story <br />commercial building; and (2) a Planned Unit Development (PUD) <br />Rezoning and Development Plan approval to rezone the site from the <br />C -C (Central Commercial), Downtown Revitalization, Core Area Overlay <br />District to PUD -C -C (Planned Unit Development — Central Commercial), <br />Downtown Revitalization, Core Area Overlay District; and to construct <br />an approximately 4,074- square -foot, two -story commercial /office <br />building with an attached approximately 1,225- square -foot second -floor <br />apartment unit, and four, approximately 2,015- square -foot, three -story <br />multi - family residential units. <br />Eric Luchini presented the staff report and described the scope, layout, and key <br />elements of the proposal. <br />Commissioner Ritter requested clarification that the Planned Unit Development (PUD) <br />originally was in agreement with the concept but the applicants changed their mind with <br />the proposed changes. <br />Mr. Luchini replied that is generally correct. He stated that the original set of comments <br />was that they were open to some degree of residential on the property; however, they <br />somewhat changed direction as they were strongly encouraging an increase in the <br />square footage in the area of the commercial use but did not want that to be at the <br />expense of allowing more residential on the property. <br />Chair Allen noted that she does not recall seeing a letter from the Pleasanton <br />Downtown Association (PDA). <br />Mr. Luchini replied that the first round of comments from the PDA was actually verbal <br />and was received at one of its Board Meetings that staff attended; these comments <br />were included in the staff report for the Commission's Work Session on August 26, <br />2015. He added that at that Work Session, the Commission had requested that formal <br />written feedback from the PDA be provided, which is attached as Exhibit G to the staff <br />report. <br />Mr. Weinstein confirmed Mr. Luchini's statements in terms of the general themes <br />expressed in the PDA's letter. He clarified that he did not think the PDA was saying <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 9, 2015 Page 9 of 40 <br />