My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 101711 Special Mtg
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 101711 Special Mtg
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
2/2/2012 11:23:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/17/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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
live/work spaces; appropriateness of the overall design for this particular location; colors <br />and materials; locations of buildings; and the size of the small park. He noted that the <br />park was a last-minute addition to the Guidelines, and no size was required or specific <br />reference given other than that one of the two projects would have to contain a park. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin inquired if the park element occurred at the Planning Commission <br />or Council level. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan replied that it happened at the Council level. <br /> <br />Chair Narum inquired if the park area is .55 or 1.55 acres. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan replied that it is .55 acre. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin commented that there was no stipulation of size. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan confirmed there was none; only what is a practical, usable site. He noted that <br />the applicant had inquired how big it has to be, and staff had indicated that the smallest <br />workable park in the City is the Veterans Plaza on Peters, which provides a nice little <br />park. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan indicated that this ends his presentation but that staff has a lot of other <br />graphics which he could display if the Commission so desires. <br /> <br />Referring to the one entryway on the Site 2 project [Mr. Dolan clarified that there were <br />two: the main project entrance on Gibraltar Drive and another on Hacienda Drive], <br />Commissioner Olson inquired if there were security gates on those entryways. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan replied that none were proposed at this time. <br /> <br />Commission Olson stated that he was wondering if there should be, and the reason is <br />what would prevent people who do not particularly belong there from driving into the <br />development, all the way to the back and causing problems. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan replied that staff would prefer not to have the security gates. He stated that <br />this was one of the ideas of trying to provide an internal street style, where the streets <br />would be like any City street even though it would be private. He indicated that there <br />are obviously security concerns with projects like this, but the design gets somewhat <br />tricky as it is fairly tight, and there would need to be a turnaround for people who pull in <br />and then cannot go forward. He noted that the design right now would not <br />accommodate that. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank inquired if the Police <br />Department had reviewed this design and weighed in on - <br />that these are all private and inquired if there would be any patrolling taking place and if <br />they have been evaluated from that perspective. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 17, 2011 Page 12 of 36 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.