My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 121212
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
PC 121212
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:21:18 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 3:11:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
12/12/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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
the other gateway and the rotundas that were done there, he thinks that it could also be <br />done here, although he realizes this is not a round thing where people are going to go <br />out and congregate necessarily. He added that there is a certain je ne sail quoi that is <br />missing here, and it the applicants and staff can figure out what that is, that would be <br />something to put in there. <br />E. Are the residential building designs, colors, materials and heights <br />acceptable? <br />Commissioner Narum disclosed that she met with Mr. Pringle and Kathy Thibodeaux, <br />project consultant. She then stated that she really likes Pleasanton Gateway. She <br />indicated that she really likes two of the three villages and the renderings, but she is still <br />not bawled over with the building with the arches. She noted that in her neighborhood, <br />there were houses built with the arches across the front that are now all being taken out <br />and modernized with columns and interesting treatments. She added that the other <br />thing that bothered her, and Mr. Pringle alluded to it, is that the building was kind of all <br />one - dimensional, one big long building with one roofline with these arches in front of it, <br />with no variation of roof line and no real articulation such as a bay window or parts of it <br />moving in and out. She stated that the two other buildings are gorgeous and that she <br />would like to see some work dome on that other one. <br />Commissioner Olson stated that he does not have any issues all the way across. He <br />indicated that the idea of putting four stories in the back is terrific and does not really <br />have an issue with the arches. He added that it lends to variety and this project has a <br />lot of variety. <br />Commissioner Pearce stated that she feels like some of the detail has been lost or <br />stripped away and that there was going to be more detail and articulation in these <br />buildings. She added that she could not tell what it is and maybe she needs better <br />visuals, but she finds that it looks very flat. She noted that, again, she might be fine with <br />this in other parts of town, but as a gateway on a very prominent corner, she would like <br />to see as much articulation and detailing as possible, especially on the buildings on <br />Bernal Avenue and Stanley Boulevard. She added that that goes for the commercial, <br />as well. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that his concern is not that they were using arches but <br />that it was this repetition of lots of arches. He indicated that he wants to see some <br />differentiation between these villages so they were on the right path, but he is not <br />certain if all of the arches worked as well, although he can live with them too. <br />Acting Chair Blank stated he does not have a problem with the arches, but the roofline <br />kind of looks like a retirement home with arches put on the front. He noted that overall, <br />the building designs are fine; however, this is a gateway, and if there is a poster child of <br />what he lovingly calls "the Pleasanton look," this has got to be it. He indicated that there <br />ought to be much more articulation in some of these. He added that he is not <br />suggesting to have one -story on Bernal Avenue, but he would really like to see the <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 12, 2012 Page 33 of 40 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.