PC 082620 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Allen also agreed stating the need for consistency. Commissioner Pace and Commissioner Brown agreed with the others. 5. Does the Planning Commission support the proposed rooftop deck or second- floor balcony? Commissioner Pace stated he did not support the rooftop deck given Staff's recommendations. He would be more likely to consider if there was no residential surrounding. He expressed support for a balcony with appropriate screening. Commissioner Balch expressed his support for the rooftop deck but raised concerns about objects placed detracting from the aesthetic. He expressed preference that it be tucked away but was not opposed to the balcony. Commissioner O'Connor agreed with Commissioner Balch, although he was not sure how it would fit on a Craftsman's design. He indicated support of both the balcony and rooftop deck. Commissioner Allen expressed support for the neighborly feel of the deck and balcony. Vice Chair Brown agreed with the other Commissioners. Discussion Point#3: 6. Aside from providing a vehicle turnaround and a trash enclosure, is the site layout acceptable? Commissioner Allen stated parking was the big issue and requested further information on why the turnaround was being required. Commissioner Pace discussed the need for a better understanding of parking and motive for requiring the turnaround. Commissioner O'Connor expressed support for no turnaround as there seemed to be enough space. Commissioner Balch stated that parking was driving design and he expressed concern the project would die because of the overriding concern about parking. He also stated he did not support the requirement for a turnaround and that the trash enclosure should be factored in. Vice Chair Brown stated he could not conceive a different layout for the property but would hold judgement to the final design. Discussion Point #4: 7. Is there additional information needed to assist the Commission in its decision on the proposal? Commissioner Allen requested feedback from the Pleasanton Downtown Association (PDA). Commissioner Balch requested additional information on a single lift and tandem parking. He asked if the applicant could reduce commercial on the front property to reduce the parking requirements. Ms. Campbell explained that, under the DSP, there could be no net loss in commercial square footage. Commissioner Balch added that he respected the points of the other Commissioners and felt the lift was a creative solution. He reiterated there was no parking structure, though money has been collected for it, and additional parking in downtown was necessary. He expressed his hope the applicant would come back with a design that addressed the majority's desires. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 August 26, 2020 nning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 August 26, 2020 Unit (ADU). Ms. Clark explained it was not an accessory dwelling to a residential building on site. Commissioner Balch requested further clarification on what configurations would be considered ground floor residential. Ms. Clark explained a story or two above a garage was considered ground floor residential. A residential unit above a commercial would not be considered ground floor residential or be subject to those related policy requirements. Commissioner Balch pointed out page 53 of the DSP. Ms. Clark suggested any effort to circumvent the ground floor residential parking requirement (such as elevating the unit, would Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 August 26, 2020