Laserfiche WebLink
corners of all these buildings to be one -story, the next one over be a two -story, and then <br />go to the three -story so it is a step up with some articulation along the way. He stated <br />that it would lend a more open -space and airy feeling between the corners of the <br />building. <br />Commissioner O'Connor asked Acting Chair Blank if he is suggesting more symmetry. <br />Acting Chair Blank said no, not all of them. He suggested that they could have maybe <br />one -story, then two units that are two -story, and then go to the three -story. He noted <br />that it may just be the articulation issue. He invited the applicant to comment. <br />Mr. Steinberg stated that he is encouraged by the Commission's comments in general <br />and that they should probably focus on the design itself. He indicated that the drawings <br />could use some enhancement. He noted that there is more work to be done on those <br />and that they will work on that for when they come back before the Commission. <br />Mr. Steinburg stated that based on the comments, he would like to talk about the <br />mission revival building, the arches and the roofline; and the stepping. With respect to <br />the mission revival building and with both buildings, he stated that their thought was to <br />take the elements they see in the buildings in Pleasanton; not copy them literally but <br />take those components and see if they could make them a little more contemporary <br />while using all of the pieces. He noted that they may have been more successful with <br />the Craftsman style than with the mission, although there is the suggestion with the <br />Craftsman to break it up and have variety and articulation and smaller pieces and good <br />detail. On the other building, he stated that it might be interesting to not try to do the <br />same thing but just do it in stucco. He noted that there is some merit and it was <br />intentional, and if it was a bad idea, they can let go of it to have repetition and to not <br />have everything so different. He indicated that it would add some of the richness to this. <br />So that is one comment. <br />Mr. Steinburg stated that their design team had a discussion about the arches, how it <br />started and was repetitive, and they found them very powerful in the way that it <br />counterpointed the Craftsman and the break -up. He continued that they then started to <br />water it down a little and they had some arches and some squares. He indicated that <br />he was not sure that helped or if they would be better off making it all the Craftsman or <br />making it more different. He noted that there is some more exploring to do, but he <br />wanted to plant the seed with the Commission that maybe the repetition, particularly if <br />they got the right thing they were repeating with the right kind of detail, it might actually <br />be a positive. <br />Acting Chair Blank stated that he understands the applicant's rationale for what was <br />done but that he gets the sense from the Commission that there is a need for more <br />articulation. He added that his sense is that they are not quite with the applicant yet. <br />Acting Chair Blank stated that he does not think they will come back for another Work <br />Session before the public hearing and suggested that they make an investment in <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 12, 2012 Page 34 of 40 <br />