PC 011404 - Laserfiche WebLink

_ privacy, noise, views, and building scale relationship. The second floor comprised only 17 percent of the total building floor area, and staff believed that it was well integrated into the building design. The window on the tower that partially faced the neighbors would be repositioned so that it would not face them. Staff believes that the Specific Plan amendment for the second story was supportable, subject to the proposed language included in the staff report, which would limit the amount of the second-story building floor area to be 20 percent of the total building. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding the differences in how the design was represented, Mr. Iserson noted that the plans were developed in September 2003 and noted that the elevations contained more detail than the rendering. He advised that the elevations were the official representation of the design. Mr. Iserson advised that public access to the arroyo had been encouraged and a gazebo at the arroyo was proposed to be an amenity for the public. The arborist recommended against that in order to preserve the trees at the arroyo. In addition, the neighbors were strongly opposed to having the public in that area. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Mr. Iserson confirmed that if the Commission chose not to allow public access at this time, the language could be retained in the Specific Plan to encourage public access in the future. _ Mr. Iserson advised that the property would be rezoned from R-1-6,500 to PUD-O, which would be consisted with the Downtown Specific Plan. The development plan would involve the demolition of the existing house and outbuilding; the new office building would be a U-shaped building. He detailed the site development standards as shown in the staff report. Most of the trees would be retained, and staff believed that the proposed landscaping would be attractive. Staff recommended that one street tree, a Modesto ash tree, be removed because of its poor condition. Forty new trees would be planted on the site. Staff recommended a condition of approval that the applicant install and maintain three new 24-inch box Arizona ash street trees; the applicant has agreed to this condition of approval. Staff noted that a total of 51 parking spaces would be required, meeting the Code requirement. Due to their higher parking demand, staff included a condition that medical office uses would not be permitted. Staff believed that the second-story design was well integrated into the building design. The City's consulting architect, Larry Cannon, worked closely with staff and the applicant's architect to produce the proposed building design. His comments were attached to the staff report; the applicant has incorporated most of the comments into the design. The project was reviewed and supported by the Pleasanton Downtown Association Design Committee. The Committee suggested that the Planning Commission pay close attention to the design details of the building since some of the design details (such as the stucco treatment) were not clearly called out on the plans. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2004 Page 13 of 22