PC 071316 - Laserfiche WebLink

Amos: I believe its five feet. Commissioner Balch: And we talked about the communication. Commissioner Nagler: I don't have questions. I have comments. Chair Ritter: Okay, let's start with comments. Commissioner Allen: I have one more question for Mike. Mike, and I apologize I didn't ask you earlier, if we were to preserve all three trees, there are three heritage trees and one is being removed. What would it take to keep all three? Amos: I'm just going to point out where this tree is. It's right here, so the third tree is right here. Commissioner Allen: Okay, so that answers my question. Chair Ritter: Okay, let's move on with comments. Commissioner Nagler: Let me just go through the issues. First of all just to repeat something I said at the workshop, I appreciate the creativity of this project and the fact that it is a bit out of the ordinary, but in a way that is of high quality and helps us move the architecture in downtown Pleasanton along so that we don't end up without the interest that evolving architecture often brings, particularly the City core, and that this project asks us to be more creative in the type of architecture that fits our design criteria, I appreciate that, and I think that's important. Therefore, specifically on the use of various materials, I appreciate the point that Commissioner Allen made about the siding. I would want the design guidelines to be different in some ways but they are not. And so I would support asking that the applicant change or remove the metal siding. I'm okay with the metal roof because the guidelines as you point out are not as stringent on the point, but also I think it adds to the interest of the architecture. There's nothing unattractive or cheap about it, and I think that the channel metal roofing is very much an important element to the overall look and architecture of the structures and that we shouldn't start changing it. So I'm fine with the metal roof. On the setbacks, I appreciate that the setback particularly on the mixed use building is much less than what we typically require and we've talked about that previously and I've certainly thought about it. I think I'm fine with it mostly because we want to communicate that this is a mixed use building and that there is a commercial element to it. Given the size of the lot and the fact that the applicant is attempting to get the number of buildings onto it that they are, and in conjunction with that, that we want the mixed use building to clearly have a commercial component to it, I'm fine with the less than standard setback on that building, and that the setbacks on the rest of the project are within striking distance. On the parking, it's a tough one and I harp back to the fact that nothing has really changed on this question since our workshop and that our workshop fully discussed and vetted this issue. The one thing that maybe has changed is the mixed use on Residence 1, so one could reasonably argue that there is a requirement for one PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2016 Page 21 of 38