PC 011404 - Laserfiche WebLink

Larry Cannon, City consulting architect, did not believe it was necessary to change the roof but believed that the smaller design details would be very important. Robert Byrd, 403 St. Mary Street, spoke in support of this item. He noted that he had attended the neighborhood meeting on September 11, 2003 and recalled that most of the people liked the elevations. He believed it would be an attractive building. He noted that he personally knew the neighbors who lived across the street, and they liked the elevations as well. He wished to discuss the parking and noted that Tom Siewert graciously agreed to open the parking lot to the public on evenings and weekends on a temporary basis to see if it would work. He did not like to see 51 parking spaces sit vacant on weekends and evenings when they were desperately needed Downtown. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Byrd replied that the project architects were very capable, and he was confident that they would bring an attractive design forward. A discussion of possible parking lot logistics ensued. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Fox expressed concern that the tower appeared to have grown seven feet rather than two feet and that the roof had grown approximately four feet. She noted that she could not support this design and did not believe it fit in with the small-town characteristics of Pleasanton. ., Commissioner Roberts moved to: (1) make the finding that the project would nave a de minimus impact on wildlife; (2) recommend approval of the draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration; (3) recommend approval of Case PSP-5 for an amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan as shown on Exhibit D; (4) find that the proposed PUD development plan is consistent with the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and purposes of the PUD ordinance; (5) recommend approval of the rezoning of 325 Ray Street from R-I-6,500 (Single-Family Residential) District to PUD-O (Planned Unit Development -Office) District as shown in Exhibit E; and (6) recommend approval of Case PUD 30, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B, with the modifications that the applicant may post the parking lot as a private lot and to work with staff and Larry Cannon to make the blank wall appear more articulated, such as using a window, ironwork, or the to reduce the appearance of bulkiness; and that the language in the Downtown Specific Plan be retained to encourage access to the Arroyo. Commissioner Maas seconded the motion. Commissioner Sullivan appreciated the fact that the applicant spoke with the neighbors but expressed concern about the possible changes to the Specific Plan with respect to the intended one-story building on this site. He believed this building was too massive to support that change to a Specific Plan that many people developed over a long period of time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 14, 2004 Page 16 of 22