My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 110509 Special Meeting
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
PC 110509 Special Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:41:38 PM
Creation date
1/28/2010 10:46:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/5/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
stands which breaks the horizontal line created by the roof ridge and further enhances <br />the silhouette and removes the industrial appearance of the building. He then described <br />the front entry, glass lobby, expansive stairway, transition of the landing, and views from <br />the inside. He noted that the exterior elements have been strengthened with windows <br />and shading canopies in the front and the rear, adding depth and character to the <br />façade and breaking up the mass on the sides. <br />Mr. Petruzzi presented color alternatives of brick red, green, and blue. He stated that <br />the standard retail box is basically 45 feet high to the top of the wall, but the walls at the <br />eaves are 25 feet, with the highest point on the roof just slightly over 38 feet. <br />Commissioner Blank inquired if the dog exercise area has been designed in terms of its <br />layout of the area rather than its location. <br />Mr. Bocian said no. He stated that one of the issues was the dimensions of a dog park, <br />noting that there are some national standards. He noted that the Master Plan was <br />approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission and that the dog park area was <br />very small in terms of the Master Plan and was not large enough to have any type of <br />meaningful interaction for dogs. He indicated that the idea was to somehow link it to the <br />detention basin. He stated that Staff will need to look at the entire issue and review its <br />size and scope. <br />Commissioner Blank pointed out that he visited a great dog park in Prescott, Arizona. <br />Commissioner Blank referred to the development agreement and indicated that he <br />wanted to ensure on the record that this strictly addressed financial arrangements. He <br />noted that the City has had situations in the past where conditions of approval put in <br />place by the Planning Commission have been undone in a development agreement. <br />Mr. Bocian stated that the development agreement would include fundamental financial <br />arrangements and issues related to the period where the City will expect construction to <br />take place. He added that there will be language relative to the operations of the facility <br />and that it does not include language relative to the architecture of the building. <br />Commissioner Blank inquired if the Commission will be able to discuss the development <br />agreement before it was signed. <br />Mr. Bocian confirmed that would be the case. <br />Commissioner Blank stated that there is a discussion about high quality amenities for <br />the Park. He wanted to ensure that the bathrooms would not look like those at the <br />sports park, which are very similar to what he sees in Alcatraz. He suggested the use <br />of porcelain light fixtures rather than stainless steel, similar to what was done in the <br />bathrooms at Delucchi Park in Downtown. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 5, 2009 Page 7 of 19 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.