PC 011007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Since the staff report was drafted, staff has received three public comments regarding the project. The adjacent neighbor at 261 Spring Street believed the proposed building was too tall and too close to the property line and did not believe the proposed design was characteristic of Spring Street. The resident at 340 Ray Street, located behind the site, commented that any building on the lot would be an improvement and added that parking on Spring Street can sometimes be tight, requiring adequate visitor parking. He requested that no outdoor music or wedding receptions be allowed for noise-related reasons. A resident on St. Mary’s Street was not supportive of a three-story building; she believed that if the City continued to allow three-story buildings, sunlight in the Downtown area will be blocked. She was concerned about parking in front of her house, which was often taken, and she would like the project to provide all the needed parking on its own site. Ms. Giffin advised that the Pleasanton Downtown Association also reviewed the project and was supportive of the project concept. She displayed a PowerPoint presentation detailing the proposed project. Commissioner Olson inquired whether the pilates studio had to stay there and whether an L-shaped two-story building could be built to take over the space occupied by the studio. He expressed reservations about the three-story building on that site. Ms. Giffin noted that the applicant intended to put her business, the pilates studio, in the back space. She added that the space has just been remodeled to accommodate that occupancy. Commissioner Blank noted that he loved the concept of a live-work space, and he noted that this use was successfully used in many areas in Europe. He preferred the east side to the west side aesthetically, and he agreed with Commissioner Olson’s comments regarding a three-story building. Commissioner O’Connor expressed support for the live-work concept in the Downtown. He believed that in the sale of the building on the front corner where Century 21 had been located, the parking lot was required to be sold with the building. He inquired whether that had changed with this proposal. Mr. Iserson noted that this was a separate lot from the Century 21 building, and he was not aware of any requirement that the parking lot must go with the Century 21 building. Because this was a separate legal lot, it had entitlements to develop separately; he believed there were a few spaces behind the Century 21 building. Commissioner O’Connor noted that information was received from the Planning Department because he had been in contract to buy that building; they would have been required to buy the parking lot and the building together, so they dropped out of the contract. Mr. Iserson did not know the genesis of that requirement, and his understanding was that it was not correct. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 2007 Page 11 of 27