Laserfiche WebLink
6. PUBLIC HEARINOS AND OTHER MATTERS <br /> <br />Item 6a <br />R~condderatioa of Council'~ deter~tion to uphoM Chm~r~ ~ht~' ap~ <br />(Ca~ PAP-IS~I-3~D), ~ ~t ~e o~e ~ m ~ ~p~e for ~e <br />p~ l~atM at ~75 Hopy~ R~ ~d refer~g ~e b~g d~ renew to ~e <br />P~ Co~s~. (SR 01:132) <br /> <br />Brian Swift presented the staff report. <br /> <br />(Ms. Michelotti arrived at 7:39 p.m.) <br /> <br />Ms. Dennis asked if everyone was in concurrence with the prior Council decision. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said the staff, applicant and Housing Commission were in concurrence that <br />housing was not appropriate for this site. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala indicated she liked the design of the building and asked if Council would <br />agree to a peer review of the original design with final review by Council. <br /> <br />Ms. Michelotti agreed and reiterated her support of an office use on this site. <br /> <br />Mayor Pico was in favor of the design being reviewed by the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Ms. Dennis want~l a peer review and review by the Planning Commission. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell was in favor of the peer review. He commended Ms. Ayala on her request <br />for a review since it facilitated an interesting discussion of affordable housing and its future. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala, Mr. Campbell, and Ms. Michelotti indicated they liked the design of the <br />building as it was presented. <br /> <br /> Scott Graeser, Chamberlin Associates, indicated that although he was not happy about the <br />delays, the discussion about affordable housing was useful. He was interested in receiving some <br />fe~lback bom Council on the design of the building. He felt there was an impasse with the peer <br />reviewer. He was very pleased with the design, but would not oppose required revisions. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Ayala, seconded by Mayor Hco, to adopt Resolution No. 01- <br />063, finding the use acceptable and referring the building's design to the Plannin5 <br />Commi~ioll for review. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis felt it was important to complete the peer review because this is an important <br />comer site in Pleasanton. She felt the peer review was to replace the design review board that <br />was disbanded. She is not an architect and, even though she likes the building, the decision <br />should not be based on her personal opinion. The Planning Commission had indicated it liked <br />the building on its own, but were concerned about the context and had not had the benefit of the <br /> <br />Pl~santon City Council 6 06/05/01 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />