My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
13
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2016
>
090616
>
13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2016 1:49:21 PM
Creation date
8/31/2016 3:01:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
9/6/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
13
Document Relationships
13 ATTACHMENT 3
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\090616
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
163
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 Ritter: Okay, this is a good workshop. F) Are the proposed building designs, area, <br /> massing, number of stories, heights, and colors and materials acceptable and compatible with <br /> the Downtown and surrounding area? <br /> Amos: Before the Commission goes into this question just in case, I would look at Exhibit B-1 <br /> for the elevation drawings. They're better than what is proposed as Exhibit B and there are <br /> some minor changes in that the standing seam metal roof is proposed on the lower gables of <br /> the residential units. So before you dive into this question, I would suggest you look at B-1 for <br /> reference. <br /> Commissioner Nagler: And the siding has been changed too. <br /> Amos: Yes; they're using the horizontal and vertical siding and the standing seam metal roof <br /> on the residence. <br /> Commissioner Nagler: In response to staffs comments, right? <br /> Amos: Yes. <br /> Commissioner Allen: Do you have anything you could put on the screen on this one? <br /> Amos: The elevation drawings in the staff report or the presentation reflect B-1. So if you want <br /> to start with any particular building, what's presented in the presentation is what is reflective of <br /> B-1. <br /> Chair Ritter: Any thoughts on the massing? <br /> Commissioner Nagler: The massing is fine. The height is 30 feet. I'm fine with it being three <br /> stories mostly because the square footage of the upper floor is so much less square footage <br /> than on the ground floor so it doesn't, to me, having a massing challenge. And I think that the <br /> architecture is terrific; that it's pushing us in the downtown area to go beyond what is currently <br /> sort of our comfort zone but within the same general parameters of farm or whatever you call <br /> it, but the point is, I think the architecture is great and I would hope that the applicant is not <br /> pushed further to make it less interesting. <br /> Commissioner Balch: I'm actually the same. The design I think is excellent. Massing, I have <br /> no problems with it. I think they've done a great job with addressing that. I think the number of <br /> stories works here in a practical sense as well as in the fact that it is a mezzanine level that <br /> creates a unique space for, call them micro-units, right? So I think it's really a top-notch <br /> design. I really like it, so I'm fine all the way. <br /> Chair Ritter: I agree. Tim Ward, the architect did the Starbucks and he understands our <br /> downtown. You studied that I remember pretty hard, so I kind of agree with the other <br /> commissioners. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor: So former Commissioner Phil Blank would have a problem with the <br /> "Pleasanton look" but I like it. I like it. I believe David's right. You're pushing us a bit into some <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 25, 2016 Page 20 of <br /> 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.