PC 050907 - Laserfiche WebLink

Jim Lowey, 2 Fairway Lane, noted that he is a long-time Pleasanton resident and valued the unique character and flexibility of Pleasanton's Downtown, as demonstrated by the Rose Hotel. He did not believe the Hotel set a precedent for three-story buildings throughout Downtown and that this project would create a rush for similar projects. He supported the applicants in this matter and believed both homes would work well in the Downtown. Chairperson Fox noted that a letter from John Harvey had been received. She requested that staff report the content to the audience and Planning Commission. Ms. Decker noted that the content was similar to that described within the staff report regarding his concerns about second residential units, precedent-setting, and what effects it may have on residential districts in the Downtown area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Fox noted that when Mr. Winter did his project, there was considerable discussion regarding on-street parking on Peters Avenue and Mr. Winter was required to pay into the Downtown parking fund for that project. She inquired whether the applicant should be required to pay into the parking fund. Ms. Decker stated that was not necessary because the site had adequate parking, and all the facilities, infrastructure, and site conditions remained the same. She noted that the use would not be intensified. Commissioner Blank moved to find that the proposed PUD development plan is consistent with the General Plan, the Downtown Specific Plan, and the purposes of the PUD Ordinance, to make the PUD findings as listed in the staff report, and to recommend approval of Case PUD-61, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B, as recommended by staff. Commissioner Narum seconded the motion. Commissioner Pearce proposed an amendment to require that substantial changes to the site development standards come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Decker noted that this was not a variance process and that when staff evaluates whether a request is minor or major, controversy in the neighborhood would be taken into account. She noted that any significant changes not clearly stated within the development standards would be a minor modification at the very least. Any question may be elevated to the City Council through the Zoning Administration process. Commissioner Pearce noted that the original motion was acceptable to her. Chairperson Fox noted that she would have supported the amendment to bring it back to the Planning Commission and would not support the original motion without that provision. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 9, 2007 Page 5 of 20