PC 021308 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. PC-2008-04, approving PCUP-209, was entered and adopted as motioned. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS a. PUD-81-29-05M -City of Pleasanton Application for a maj or 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. Zoning for the property is PUD-C-O (Planned unit Development Commercial Office) District, Downtown Revitalization District, Core Area Overlay District. Planning Director Jerry Iserson summarized the staff report, and presented the background, scope and layout of this matter. Chair Blank disclosed that he had a brief conversation with Mr. Madden and Mr. Pereira, and had visited the property three times without the knowledge of either party. He had visited the interior of Hap's as well as the exterior of the property. Commissioner Fox disclosed that she met with Mr. Madden and Mr. Pereira, visited the property, and discussed the matter with the Chief Building Official. Commissioner O'Connor disclosed that he had visited the property on two occasions without either owner, had a conversation with Mr. Madden, but was unable to connect with Mr. Pereira. Commissioner Olson disclosed that he met with Mr. Pereira at the property and spoke with Mr. Madden on two occasions regarding this matter. Commissioner Narum disclosed that she met with Mr. Pereira at the property and had visited the property from both the Hap's side and Railroad Square side on her own three times. She also met with Mr. Madden. Commissioner Pearce disclosed that she spoke with Mr. Madden but was unable to connect with Mr. Pereira; she also visited the property on her own. Commissioner Fox noted that she had pulled the records from the 1967 approval and that the 1967 staff report included the recommendation that "applicants provide adequate access easement of not less than six feet from the exit of the new addition to the public right of way. This easement shall be paved to provide safe and adequate egress and shall conform to the requirements of the Building Code." She inquired whether that referred to the access to the front of the building, and if so, why it had not been paved and why the Planning Department did not follow up on that issue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 13, 2008 Page 3 of 42