PC 010908 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker replied that the Handbook states that the Commission, by vote, may continue the item to the next meeting date or to another date acceptable to the Commission. She recommended that the item be continued to the February 13th meeting due to the number of items on a request made on this item and the impacts it would have to the already pre-set items on the January 23rd meeting agenda. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no items for consideration. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS a. PUD-81-28-05M, City of Pleasanton Application for a major modification to an existing PUD development plan to consider whether an existing six-foot tall masonry wall along a portion of the westerly property line between Pleasanton Station and Hap's Restaurant should be retained or removed. The property is located at 30 W. Neal Street and is zoned PUD-C-O (Planned Unit Development -Commercial-Office) District, Downtown Revitalization District, and Core Area Overlay District. This item was continued to the February 13, 2008 meeting at the request of Commissioner Fox. b. PDR-602, Michael O'Callaghan Application for a modification to a previously approved design review application for a two-story commercial building with an attached apartment unit at 725 Main Street to reconsider Condition No. 15.c. regarding the installation of pavers in front of the building and Condition No. 72 regarding the installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system for the building. Zoning for the property is C-C (Central Commercial) District, Downtown Revitalization District, and Core Area Overlay District. Steve Otto presented the staff report and summarized the background, scope, and layout of the project. He noted that Fire Chief Bill Cody and Fire Marshall Scott Deaver were present to address any questions regarding fire sprinklers. In response to Commissioner Pearce's inquiry with respect to historical procedures on whether this application was initiated by staff or the applicant, Mr. Otto replied that the application for the pavers was initiated by staff and the sprinkler system by the applicant. Commissioner Pearce inquired why it appeared that no progress was being made on the construction of the building when it was demolished in July. Mr. Otto replied that he would defer that question to the applicant. He added that construction normally starts right after demolition, and he was not aware if the delay was due to the sprinkler system or some other reason. He noted, however, that the building permit plans had just been submitted for plan check review, an indication that the prof ect is moving forward. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 9, 2008 Page 6 of 28