PC 04/26/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Staff has several concerns with the proposed building. Staff feels the proposed development plan must conform to the specialized design polices in the Downtown Specific Plan, the Downtown Revitalization Plan, the Downtown Pleasanton Design Guidelines, and Chapter 18.74 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff feels the proposed development plan is deficient in meeting several of the key Downtown policies and regulations. Staff feels the building lacks continuous building frontage along the site as well as not being pedestrian oriented. These issues are strongly encouraged in the recently-adopted Downtown Revitalization Plan. Staff has encouraged the owner to expand the footprint of the building. Several features lack pedestrian orientation such as the floor elevation raised approximately three feet higher than the Main Street sidewalk, the window views are restricted, lack of Main Street entrances, etc. Also, the outdoor dining patio is designed with a wall between the patio area and the sidewalk which restricts visibility and access. Staff also feels the proposed landscape planter beds at the corner of Main and Ray Streets are inappropriate. They would substitute a plaza hardscape or bring the building closer to the corner of the lot. Staff feels there should be more Main Street entrances. Also, because the building is raised three feet from elevation, it is not handicap accessible. This is another reason staff feels the building should be placed at ground level. Staff does not like the two driveways on Ray Street as well as the excessive amount of paving visible from Ray and Main Streets. Staff feels one driveway will be sufficient. Two driveways may encourage a drive-thru window. The Downtown Specific Plan clearly indicates that drive-thru uses are not appropriate on Main Street. Mr. Iserson advised that the applicant and the owner of the liquor store are not agreeable to combining the two parking lots. He also stated the number of anticipated parking spaces will fall short of the required 22 spaces by four spaces. Staff feels the applicant's best option will be to pay in-lieu parking fees for this deficit. Staff strongly opposes reducing the building area to correspond with the needed parking spaces. The applicant's color choice of dark green base color, beige trim, and white window frames does not meet the Downtown Design Guidelines which call for light or pastel base colors and deep trim colors. Regarding the Ray Street/Main Street/St. John Street realignment plan adopted by the City Council, a two foot land dedication is required of the applicant. The applicant is opposed to having to pay for the Ray Street frontage improvements. At this time, staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the subject design review application. Chairman Wright inquired of staff if a third option would be to discuss all issues and then continue the hearing. Staff feels that may be appropriate if the applicant agrees to the Commission's directives. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 April 26, 1995