|
Fi•ure 2: Street view of the sub-ect buildin• _
<br /> k ` op
<br /> r �
<br /> . ------‘ ‘Vtf.
<br /> iti
<br /> - .--" : (, iiii i ,- „ - 7,-...,-, -1' '
<br /> _.._ ! A k
<br /> ia riiiirdis;hi- - _IA.--— „....-- . - , -_,:-.,,,.--,_,.t...:.t.„...
<br /> s
<br /> r
<br /> , t„
<br /> pit
<br /> —< I I ---
<br /> _ 4z
<br /> � x
<br /> k.* .
<br /> Fi•ure 3: Nearest residential uses and corres•ondin•• distances
<br /> r 'jy,.,:
<br /> Total 464.1iift111
<br /> _�
<br /> :,
<br /> S
<br /> ri r T 4 r
<br /> .
<br /> r
<br /> .
<br /> .-� it
<br /> lt
<br /> w
<br /> .' .
<br /> / :;;;` * $''' q " Tutal:155.97 ft TM F, ^' s
<br /> }
<br /> TiitI: Iln.��� tt
<br /> ...,_► "fir c�
<br /> a
<br /> f
<br /> f\ 'Le,'It F :417` p4— :H
<br /> 44
<br /> (4.4
<br /> •
<br /> y
<br /> J
<br /> d -. Tljtc41
<br /> ' _. _ 7rr
<br /> II
<br /> / 7 y ` �' 1 * e,S cit t f
<br /> a e``..x . ifr
<br /> om , •,'' •. it 05 pf, .• Ai AD
<br /> P20-0987, Gilman Brewing Company Planning Commission
<br /> 3 of 8
<br />.
<br /> Figures 1 and 2 below show an aerial photograph of the subject site and a street view of the
<br /> subject building. The subject site is bordered on the north, south and west (across Main Street)
<br /> sides by commercial and office uses, and a mixed-use (retail/office and residential)
<br /> development on the east side. The nearest residential uses and their distances are shown in
<br /> Figure 3.
<br /> Figure 1: Aerial hotogra h of subject site
<br /> } .' '► Atoitikw'�. 4,„.. a ''"11 rte ATMs
<br /> c
<br /> ,, ,,,,,, #8.1
<br /> ;� _ i try .
<br /> J1 . „_ No �v. a r ft.i...44
<br /> 0 ...,,,,,,,,,‘rv..0,41,„A. , t.ji, 4 c.t.,„_-: .; 'Entre
<br /> t a 0.: r.. �
<br /> ,:,—; 7,,,,911/ ' - 0 i ,;-- ' --'",- .-,, tiE• 11 ,,,co )
<br /> 41'
<br /> ,. s? t"
<br /> F ./7-;* 722 f ' ,/_ i
<br /> ;3 + . �` I1 1 `a:c, .,,rr, ,i,,, a t' � ,+'�"'-;fit
<br /> Q• , kik a
<br /> '+ /,. . ^ h6 9 `-, /.4i. ,,,,, in 4 A, I +fir x'':° 'e -,7N-7,... -
<br /> his r .� i ,`ns 6.ti } C�rIR�-: �' , r‘i 'PA ;.y
<br /> P20-0987, Gilman Brewing Company Planning Commission
<br /> 2 of 8
<br />ilar aesthetics to Pleasanton would be
<br /> helpful as the Commissioners were constrained by their own experiences.
<br /> Commissioner Brown stated he was looking forward to the tour.
<br /> Chair Ritter stated he was not in favor of additional regulations but understood the need to
<br /> comply with standards and remove subjectivity. He expressed his desire to establish effective
<br /> and smooth processes. He stated he was an advocate of streamlining the zoning code and
<br /> hoped the design standards would complement the code. Ms. Clark stated the City wanted to
<br /> remove laborious, uncertain design review and the purpose of the exercise was to ensure the
<br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 7 December 9, 2020
<br />te quality development that fit the
<br /> style and feel of Pleasanton.
<br /> Commissioner Pace inquired if the standards being provided were real life examples relative to
<br /> the standards that Mr. Williams had judged as successful or not, and whether the
<br /> Commissioners were to review to see if they were aligned with the designation. Mr. Williams
<br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 7 December 9, 2020
<br />
|