PC 061108 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Rockwood noted that when they started the process again recently and asked staff what substantial conformance would be and which direction they should go, staff was very clear and again told them that four stories was what was approved and that they would need to do four stories if they wanted to be in substantial conformance. Commissioner Fox inquired whether the windows on the west and north elevation had bars on them. Ms. Giffin replied that the 1985 plans did not have a west elevation, and was not included in the PowerPoint presentation. Wayne Rasmussen, applicant representative, displayed the elevations on the overhead screen and described the series of recessed decks as well as areas where the rear wall of the unit was recessed four feet from the outside wall of the building. He noted that the ironwork protected people within the four-foot-wide deck area. Commissioner Fox noted that the Planning Commission minutes from 1985 discussed fire truck access and inquired how the fire ladder would get into the building if the ironwork went floor to ceiling. Mr. Rasmussen replied that a condition of approval would include approval of the plans by the Fire Marshal and that any obstructions to safety would be designed out at that time. He added that the architect was in contact with the Fire Marshal and that those details had been addressed and would be modified during the final plan stage. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor regarding why the decks appeared to be so different, Mr. Rasmussen replied that they endeavored to refine the design concepts from 1985. Robert Binder noted that his mother was 80 years old and did not believe that she would have been able to climb the stairs even ten years ago. He stated that he believed the presence of the stairs would be a hazard in an evacuation and that it would be difficult to compare anything to 1985 as so much had changed significantly. He noted that the north side of Stoneridge Drive contained all commercial uses and that there was no residential on that side. He noted that there was a park, their condos, and more residential on his side of Stoneridge Drive. He stated that his complex faced the hillside and that he enjoyed the view from his home. He noted that the residents of the proposed complex would see the view that he would be robbed of. He added that he was unsure of what the law would require them to do and was concerned about possible legal fees in the face of rising fuel prices and declining property values. Fran Robestelli thanked the Planning Commission for the thorough questions. She noted that she did not live in Pleasanton in 1985 and believed the City performed due diligence to put measures in place to protect those who move in and out of the residential properties and for them to have a say in the activities. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 11, 2008 Page 16 of 28