5 - Laserfiche WebLink

PROJECT SITE ALTERNATIVES The subject parcel is a legally created lot, whose zoning allows for a commercial use such as warehousing. The proposed project meets the intent of the zoning designation, and all buildings are in compliance with zoning standards with respect to maximum height, setbacks, etc. However, the Planning Commission could consider the following alternatives to the proposed project: 1. Limiting the project to two-stories, or further modifying building height or massing; 2. Reducing the overall square-footage of the project; 3. No project, under which the site would not be redeveloped in the near-term. Alternative 1 would mean that the three-story building would have to be reduced to two-stories, if the Planning Commission were to determine it necessary to do so to meet the criteria for design review or findings for approval of the Use Permit. However, it may also mean that in order for the project to be feasible the applicant may need to increase the proposed one-story storage building to two-stories. Although this would reduce the height of the larger building, it would increase the height and potentially the size of the building most adjacent to the residential properties. Alternative 2 would result in reduced massing and total building size on-site. This alternative should be considered if the project amenities/mitigations and traffic impact are not sufficient to meet the General Plan program related to FAR. Staff suggests the amenities/mitigations are sufficient and the traffic generation is minimal. Moreover, the proposed site design (e.g., setbacks, landscaping, etc.) and building design (e.g., insets, faux windows, variety of materials, etc.) help mitigate the building mass and scale as described above. Alternative 3 would not allow for the redevelopment of this site, and would result in the existing, aging storage facility to continue to operate as is, likely without any substantial investment in site improvements. The proposed project is consistent with the allowable land uses and zoning for the site, represents a reasonable development scenario for the site, and allows for improvements and upgrades to buildings and landscaping that will significantly enhance the site over what exists today. Based on the above, staff does not recommend the Commission adopt any of the alternatives. DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The Pleasanton Municipal Code Section 18.20 sets forth Design Review Criteria and 18.124 sets forth Conditional Use Permit findings. These criteria and findings are set forth in the draft Resolution included as Exhibit A, and includes preservation of natural beauty, relationship of the proposed buildings with the streetscape and surroundings, compatibility of architecture, among other criteria. As described in Exhibit A and based on the information and analysis provided in this Agenda Report, staff recommends the Commission make the required findings to approve the project. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this hearing was sent to property owners and tenants/occupants within 1,000 feet of the site as shown in Exhibit H. At the time of report publication, staff has received one public comment which noted concern about the three-story proposal. The public comment P19-0128/P19-0129 Public Storage Planning Commission 14of15 t will be minimizing its emissions footprint. Staff suggests that the amenities and mitigations are sufficient to justify the proposed floor area ratio. P19-0128/P19-0129 Public Storage Planning Commission 6 of 15 additional gated entry from Nevada Street will be for emergency access only. P19-0128/P19-0129 Public Storage Planning Commission 4of15