CCMIN021704 - Laserfiche WebLink

discussion with the neighbors in which they were stating that they did not want the noise. The developer responded that it would then place the air conditioning units up through the roof. Even though the roof height is set back, she poimed that a Queen Anne Victorian residential house is located next to this proposed project and the Downtown Specific Plan outlines a residential, architectural style for that plot of land. The proposed office building is not a residential architectural style like the surrounding houses. The second story is an amendment to the Specific Plan, which was also a concern of some of the Planning Commission members. One commissioner who voted for the project noted that she did not believe that the second story was a good addition given the area. Brian B anducci, 4137 Walnut Drive, mentioned that he shared the property line and the bank of the Arroyo del Valle with the development. He objected to any access to the Arroyo del Valle, as it will directly impact him by creating potential nuisances. He strongly opposed any public parking on this site. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, Ste. 210, President of the Pleasanton Downtown Association, reminded Council that when the Downtown Specific Plan was discussed, the PDA supported an office building for the property on Ray Street rather than a residential home. He noted that the Design Committee supported the basic concept of the design, which was to protect the neighbors with a solid masonry wall and have a parking area. Ultimately, the PDA wants to develop the critical mass that it takes to make a successful downtown, which requires some intensity of development. He believed the designers were respectful of the neighbors, but he did not believe the City should lose sight of the goal. If the most sensitive resident within 300 feet is going to prevent a two-story office building, the City would not end up with the kind of downtown it wants to have. He noted that the Parking Committee reviewed the proposed project, which then went to the Downtown Vitality Committee, and ultimately to the PDA Board for discussion. He noted that the Board was silent on the parking issue. The Board was basically in support of what it understood the staffrecommendation to be, which was that the property owner would meet the standard parking requirements. Therefore, there would be no required public shared parking imposed upon the property owner. Pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan, he recalled that Council adopted a new Parking Ordinance. He mentioned that the basic concept that was incorporated into the Parking Ordinance was that if a property owner wants to meet the basic standard of one parking space per 300 square feet, it was not required to have shared parking. If the property owner was willing to have shared public parking and is not subject to some other constraint, the property owner would be allowed one space per 400 square feet. Ms. Hosterman asked Mr. MacDonald to provide a description as to the direction of the downtown and the boundary of the Downtown Specific Plan, where it should be, and what it would like 100 years from now. Mr. Brozosky was confused and asked how Ms. Hosterman's request related to this process? Pleasanton City Council 17 02/17/04 Minutes