PC 042308 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Fox stated that it would be reasonable to say that clothing shoe, and accessory stores would not be typically seen in a TOD. Chair Blank stated that he would like the applicant to make the market decision of what kinds of retail stores were included. Commissioner Narum agreed with Chair Blank's statement and would like to allow take-out restaurant uses. Chair Blank agreed with that suggestion and invited a motion. Commissioner Pearce believed this was a great project and hoped that it succeeded. Chair Blank appreciated the work the applicant had done with the tower, noting that the original rendering of the tower looked more like a prison. He noted that it was much better and resembled Pleasanton. Commissioner Pearce moved to find that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and to recommend approval of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration; to find that the proposed General Plan Land Use Amendment is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan; to find that the proposed PUD rezoning from the Planned Unit Development -Commercial-Office District to Planned Unit Development -High Density residential/Commercial District and development plan are consistent with the General Plan and purposes of the PUD ordinance; to make the PUD findings for the proposed development plan as listed in the staff report; and to recommend approval of Cases PGPA-13, an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element to add "High Density residential" to the existing "Retail/Flighway/Service Commercial; Business and Professional Offices" Land Use Designation and PUD62, PUD rezoning the site from the Planned Unit Development -Commercial-Office District and development plan approval to construct amixed-use, high-density residential/commercial development, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibits B and C, with the modifications to strike "eliminating take-out establishments" from the uses. Commissioner Narum seconded the motion. Commissioner Narum requested further clarification of the reason for removing the counter. Chair Blank noted that there would be three people and security on-site, but never heard a reason for removing the counter. Commissioner Pearce noted that counters were expensive. Ms. Decker noted that staff discussed that issue with the applicant, and in reviewing the conditions of approval, staff initially felt that a counter would be useful, there would be a limited number of parking stalls for the retail area, and the rest was reserved for the residents. She noted that there was adrive-through aisle and that if the parking spaces were not visible from there, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 23, 2008 Page 22 of 28