Laserfiche WebLink
The HRACs recommendation, consistent with the report's recommendation of I$�A. - Page 7 <br /> Brandi, Architectural Historian, was that the Planning Commission find that the Project <br /> will not have an adverse impact on the historic resource located at 605 Middlefield <br /> Road. Refer to HRAC Resolution 13-01 , Attachment 8. <br /> Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with the applicable regulations in the <br /> DTPP, and has determined that all applicable standards have been met. <br /> . . - . . . . . <br /> DTPP Standard 525 Middlefield Proposal <br /> Height 114 feet 114 feet <br /> No. of Floors 10 10 <br /> Building Setbacks: <br /> Front 0' min, 10' max 0' to 10' feet <br /> Side 0' min, 20' max 0' to 10' feet <br /> Rear 0' min 0' to 10' feet <br /> Car Parking 526 spaces 599 spaces <br /> Bicycle Parking 120 spaces 121 spaces <br /> Sidewalks 12'width 12'width <br /> Architectural Character Neoclassical, Craftsman, Contemporary <br /> Mediterranean,Art Deco,or <br /> Contemporary <br /> Staff also considered the request to continue the use of the drive-up ATM that would be <br /> located within the new commercial parking area of the Project. Staff has considered the <br /> acceptability of this use and has made the recommendation to approve the use as an <br /> "Accessory use" per DTPP Section 2.2.2.1 .k. The Planning Manager, in addition, <br /> considered the fact that the drive-up ATM has been in operation since 1996 at this <br /> location which further supports the approval of this continued use. <br /> While nearly all 405 guidelines have been met, there are a few guidelines that <br /> warranted additional discussion. Thus, the Project required input from the AAC on those <br /> deviations from the DTPP per the City's Municipal Code. <br /> Both Staff and the AAC concluded that the proposed deviations from the DTPP <br /> guidelines are appropriate to the style, use, and scale of the building. As requested by <br /> the AAC, the applicant revised the project to respond to the AAC's suggestions. The <br /> guidelines in question are listed below along with a description of how they are not met, <br /> and the subsequent staff and AAC recommendations. These revisions are included in <br /> the applicanYs submittal of July 31 , 2013. With the inclusion of these minor updates to <br /> the plans the AAC recommended approval of the project and the Planning Commission <br /> concurred. <br /> Page 7 <br />