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
when coming through the space, it will not have the landscaped setbacks along that <br />edge but will have landscaping along the perimeter. He indicated that they believe the <br />entry at Hacienda Drive is meant to be a secondary entry and that the main entry is on <br />Gibraltar Drive, which has a focal point with the leasing office and which they want to be <br />able to celebrate with landscaping. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin requested that the applicant ensure that the Commission is <br />provided with visuals of what that entry really looks like when the application comes <br />back. <br /> <br />Chair Narum commented that it is a good point. <br /> <br />B. Are the building designs appropriate in their physical context adjacent to large <br />office buildings? <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin noted that when the building roof was discussed, Mr. Yau <br />explained how the design breaks up as it moves so that it is varied rather than just one <br />standard roof, which makes complete sense because it draws people to where they are <br />supposed to be drawn. Commissioner Pentin continued that inside the project, he sees <br />the back of the buildings with a lot of flat tops moving across; he does not see the caps <br />except for one. He indicated that this is where he is wondering about some variance in <br />that rooftop design, at the back side internal to the property, which is a lot different than <br />what is out on the street. He added that this is the element design he is still having a <br />problem with. <br /> <br />Mr. Yau replied that Site 2 is treated differently. He explained that the four-story <br />buildings do have more of a parapet roof, but they still provide quite a bit of variation. <br />He pointed out the top as the main entry into the building which is being emphasized <br />with the stair tower and lobby along the ground level. He noted that the other side, <br />which is the lighter blue and which ties in with the other project, is where the other tower <br />and the other stair tower are located, which intentionally do not have a any cap to make <br />it a little bit more asymmetrical, thereby emphasizing the one that has the elevator in it. <br />He indicated that they think there is still variety in the building, although they are not <br />opposed to exploring something else. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank requested the applicants to return with some really good visuals so <br />the Commissioners can get a sense of what it really looks like from standing on the <br />ground and looking up. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin reiterated that he was not referring to the big caps that draw <br />people to those entrances and to the retail, but rather something which breaks up the <br />flat line. He noted that while it has been pointed out that they are not all flat lines, when <br />he looks at it, they all look like flat. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 17, 2011 Page 24 of 36 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.