Laserfiche WebLink
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />Commissioner Kameny moved to make the required conditional use findings as listed in <br />the staff report and to approve PCUP-114 as conditioned in the staff report. <br />Commissioner Arkin seconded the motion. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Arkin, Kameny, Maas, Roberts, and Sullivan. <br />NOES: None. <br />ABSTAIN: None. <br />ABSENT: None. <br />Resolution No. PC-2004-40 was entered and adopted as motioned. <br />b. PCUP-61, Bernal Partners, LLC/City of Pleasanton <br />Review and consideration of possible modification to an approved conditional use permit <br />for aself-service gasoline station with a convenience mazket, quick-service restaurant, <br />and cazwash to consider hours of operation, operation of the drive-through cazwash, <br />noise, perimeter fencing, and other issues. The subject property is located at 1875 Valley <br />Avenue (southeast corner of Bemal Avenue and Valley Avenue) and is zoned PUD - C-O <br />(Planned Unit Development -Commercial-Office) District. <br />This item was continued to July 14, 2004. <br />c. PDR-355, James Byrd <br />Application for design review approval to demolish portions of the existing building at <br />328 St. Mary Street and to remodel and to construct additions totaling approximately <br />700 squaze feet in area. Zoning for the property is C-C (Central Commercial) Downtown <br />Revitalization District. <br />Mr. Otto presented the staff report and described the proposed prof ect. Staff believed that the <br />proposed building and site design were attractive, but questioned the proposed composition roof <br />material, given that the building would be aMission/Spanish Revival style. Staff originally <br />suggested to the applicant that a the or clay Mission-style roof be installed, but the building <br />cannot accommodate that load without substantial structural enhancements. Staff suggested that <br />a lighter-weight stone-coated metal roof be used to match the style more closely. He noted that a <br />condition was not included to address this issue and suggested that the Commission add a <br />condition if it desired. <br />Mr. Otto advised that plans indicated that new concrete paving would be installed at the rear and <br />eastern side of the site. After publishing the report, the applicant indicated that he may want to <br />use a different material than enhanced concrete paving, such as a brick material. Staff would <br />support that change and wished to change condition 12 to specify that some type of enhanced <br />- paving be used in the patio azeas. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2004 Page 7 of 15 <br />