My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 052516
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
PC 052516
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2017 2:43:02 PM
Creation date
8/11/2017 2:31:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/25/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
Commissioner Balch: I can go that way <br />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 <br />compatible with the Downtown and surrounding area? <br />Amos: Before the Commission goes into this question just in case, I would look at <br />Exhibit B -1 for the elevation drawings. They're better than what is proposed as Exhibit B <br />and there are some minor changes in that the standing seam metal roof is proposed on <br />the lower gables of the residential units. So before you dive into this question, I would <br />suggest you look at B -1 for 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 <br />roof on the residence. <br />Commissioner Nagler: In response to staff's 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 <br />you want to start with any particular building, what's presented in the presentation is <br />what is reflective of 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 <br />three stories mostly because the square footage of the upper floor is so much less <br />square footage than on the ground floor so it doesn't, to me, having a massing <br />challenge. And I think that the architecture is terrific; that it's pushing us in the <br />downtown area to go beyond what is currently sort of our comfort zone but within the <br />same general parameters of farm or whatever you call it, but the point is, I think the <br />architecture is great and I would hope that the applicant is not pushed further to make <br />less interesting. <br />Commissioner Balch: I'm actually the same. The design I think is excellent. Massing, I <br />have no problems with it. I think they've done a great job with addressing that. I think <br />the number of stories works here in a practical sense as well as in the fact that it is a <br />mezzanine level that creates a unique space for, call them micro - units, right? So I think <br />it's really a top -notch 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 />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 25, 2016 Page 24 of 28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.