My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
14 ATTACHMENTS 03-07
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2012
>
060512
>
14 ATTACHMENTS 03-07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/31/2012 12:26:04 PM
Creation date
5/31/2012 12:25:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
6/5/2012
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
14 ATTACHMENS 03-07
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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).
View images
View plain text
Chair Narum inquired if there were adequate standards for the aesthetics of the parking <br /> garage. She indicated that she did not want to see something similar to the parking <br /> garage across the freeway. <br /> Mr. Williams stated that the key thing with parking structures is to allow them to be <br /> parking structures and, in this particular instance, keeping them relatively simple. He <br /> indicated that everybody has unanimously suggested that the one they like the most is <br /> one seen the least, at least from Owens Drive; the City would then have the ability to do <br /> a sedate building in a parking structure. He added that what the guidelines say is to <br /> have it look more like an office building, keep it simple, and try not to create articulation <br /> that ends up being value-engineered-out in a poor way. He noted that the simpler they <br /> are, the more elegant they end up looking. He noted that everyone will be much <br /> happier if the spirit is to make it look like the other buildings in the area on Pleasanton's <br /> side of the freeway. He confirmed that these standards are in the guidelines, <br /> specifically on parking structures. <br /> Chair Narum asked Mr. Dolan if the Commission should address height as part of this <br /> question. <br /> Mr. Dolan replied that if the Commission considers it a concern, staff would like to hear <br /> about it. <br /> Commissioner Blank noted that it is so early on in the process, and anything that returns <br /> will have to be seen by the Planning Commission. He noted that it may very well be a <br /> new Commission, and while he did not think any Commission would like to have a <br /> 200-foot tower structure built, a developer may come along with a dynamic 85-foot <br /> building corner that the future Commission and staff will look at and like. <br /> Chair Narum noted that 85 feet is the maximum height allowed in the Hacienda PUD. <br /> She added, however, that a developer may want to build a 10-15-story hotel, which <br /> would be well above the 85 feet, and while she would not want to preclude this option, <br /> she did not want any developers to think that they could do that and then have it <br /> approved. She indicated that this would be a major change from the standard <br /> guidelines. <br /> Commissioner Blank stated that it would be way beyond the guidelines, and the <br /> developers would have to make a very compelling case. <br /> Mr. Fleissig explained that they tried to at least give that option without changing the <br /> guidelines, noting that the maximum height in Hacienda is 85 feet and would require a <br /> recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council for approval or denial <br /> at public hearings. He indicated that they are specific about the mixed-use hotel <br /> buildings being the use and not necessarily having a taller office building. <br /> Commissioner Pearce stated that she liked the flexibility of the language. <br /> Chair Narum agreed and indicated that this is what she is looking for. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 25, 2011 Page 16 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.