CCMIN021704 - Laserfiche WebLink

Anne Fox, 2866 Garden Creek Circle, speaking as an individual member of the Planning Commission, mentioned her belief that there were some diagrams that were missing from the Council packet. She noted that the original Planning Commission packet included an Exhibit A - an artist rendering. She noted that the Planning Commission was told that Exhibit A was the artist rendering that was provided to the neighborhood at the September 1 l, 2003 meeting. At the Planning Commission meeting, an artist rendering was presented, which included the gazebo. She pointed out that this site is located close to Kottinger Barn on Ray Street, which is a historic street in Pleasanton. The Downtown Specific Plan currently calls for a one-story office building. There was some discussion at the Planning Commission meeting with regard to the height of the second-story. She noted that the artist rendering that was provided to the neighbors at its September 1 l, 2003 meeting, compares that to the elevation on Ray Street that the Planning Commission was provided in its meeting packet. She believed the roof appeared more massive in its elevation. When she compared this to the original Planning Commission Neighborhood Meeting diagram against the diagram in the Council packet, even taking into consideration that the ceiling height was lowered a foot and a half, both the roof and the tower are larger than what it appears that the neighbors saw on September 1 l, 2003. It was the Planning Commission's understanding that as of the September 11, 2003 meeting with the planning department, the developer and the neighbors, there was never a formal, after the fact, group meeting with the neighbors and the Planning Department with a sign in sheet where the neighbors were shown that the roof had increased five to eight feet in height. It concerned her, which was one of the reasons she voted against it. She felt that even though the developer had said that it had shown pictures to the neighbors, there was never any type of follow up meeting. There was some discussion at the Planning Commission level about the heating and air conditioning, and there was some discussion about the neighbors in the initial meeting having objections to noise, which was why the roof was raised in the first place. After this was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission asked for all of the diagrams and the meeting minutes from all of the neighborhood meetings to be included in Council's packets. She did not find any concerns in the Council packet related to the heating and air conditioning noise. She believed this was an area to pay special attention to, as it is located near Kottinger Barn. The proposed building appeared quite large to her. Not having all of the history or the benefit of attending the neighborhood meetings, and in her review of what was included in the Planning Commission packet that was not included in the Council packet, she believed Council should take her comments into consideration before it decided to move ahead with this project. Ms. Ayala said she was not as concerned about the roofiine because it was pushed back fi'om the street. She would rather have the height of the roof raised than the air conditioning units being exposed. She asked Ms. Fox if her concern was only related to the height problem? Ms. Fox seemed to recall that there was some discussion at the Planning Commission level with respect to the heating and air conditioning units being somewhere outside on the patio, near the patio or in the back of the building. There may have been a Pleasanton City Council 16 02/17/04 Minutes