My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 05/24/1995
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
PC 05/24/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2017 3:56:41 PM
Creation date
3/30/2005 1:50:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/24/1995
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 05/24/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />s... MA TIERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION <br /> <br />There were none. <br /> <br />~ PUBLIC HEARINGS <br /> <br />L Z-95-12. Ed and Diane Churka <br />Application for design review approval to construct an approximately 3,956 square foot, <br />commercial building to be located at 780 Main Street. Zoning for the property is C-C <br />(Central Commercial), Downtown Revitalization/Core Area Overlay District. The <br />Planning Commission will also consider the Negative Declaration prepared for this <br />project. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson presented the staff report for Case Z-95-12, Ed and Diane Churka. This <br />application had been heard on April 26, 1995, and was continued by the Planning <br />Commission to allow the applicant and staff to modify their plans per the Commission's <br />direction. <br /> <br />The Commission also directed staff at that meeting to conduct an examination of the project <br />according to the Design Guidelines and zoning codes, which is also included in the staff <br />report, specifically addressing the "shoulds" and "shalls." <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson advised that the policies incorporated in the Downtown Specific Plan should be <br />interpreted as "shoulds." The Downtown Revitalization District - Zoning Ordinance are <br />requirements and should be interpreted as "shalls." There is room for interpretation, but <br />there is less flexibility. The Downtown Pleasanton Design Guidelines are written as <br />"shoulds" or things to be encouraged, however, they were specifically adopted into the <br />Zoning Code. Therefore, they should be considered in between the "shalls" and "shoulds." <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson continued his report going through the three design documents itemizing whether <br />this project does or does not meet the intent. These items are thoroughly discussed in the <br />staff report. <br /> <br />During the April 26th meeting, the following issues needed further clarification: <br /> <br />Regarding the handicapped accessibility, the applicants have revised their plans to install a <br />motorized lift adjacent to the steps off the Main Street sidewalk. This lift is 3 ft. x 4 ft. x 56 <br />inches tall and will be painted to match the building color. Staff feels this motorized lift on <br />Main Street would be unattractive and not consistent with the character of Downtown, as <br />well as possibly stigmatizing to the physically disabled and elderly people. Furthermore, the <br />Building Department indicated the applicant must incorporate a handicapped access ramp <br />between the southern patio area and deck areas. <br /> <br />The applicant is willing to pay in-lieu parking fees for two parking spaces. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />May 24, 1995 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.