My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 041421
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2021
>
PC 041421
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2021 3:57:07 PM
Creation date
5/13/2021 3:57:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/14/2021
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
and parking lot. In response to Chair Brown, Mr. Tassano confirmed the existing short, bushy <br /> trees would most likely be removed. <br /> Commissioner Gaidos stated his preference to retain as many oak trees as possible. He <br /> suggested the pathway meander around the trees, although he did not anticipate a large <br /> pedestrian presence due to traffic. <br /> Commissioner Pace commended efforts to retain trees and replace any removed with heritage <br /> trees. <br /> Commissioner Ritter agreed with Commissioners Gaidos and Pace. <br /> Commissioner Nibert stated the arborist report indicated a number of trees with severe injuries <br /> and asked if the heritage trees would be removed or saved. Ms. Hagen stated the City's <br /> landscape architect would work with the project team to determine the trees to be preserved. <br /> Commissioner Nibert then asked about trees to be removed due to construction conflicts. Ms. <br /> Hagen explained the trees to be removed in the small area on the southwest corner for the <br /> new driveway and emergency access lane. In response to Commissioner Nibert, Ms. Hagen <br /> explained the trees in the riparian area were being removed for health and safety reasons. <br /> Discussion Point #4 <br /> 4. a) Does the Planning Commission support the proposed building architecture and <br /> detailing, design, colors, and materials? <br /> b) Does the Planning Commission support the proposed building and dome heights? <br /> Chair Brown asked about Staff's concerns with the buildings being over 30 feet. Ms. Hagen <br /> explained that staff would like all buildings, with the exception of the dome, to be consistent <br /> with all zoning and general heights in the surrounding area. Chair Brown asked if there was an <br /> architectural reason for these buildings being just over 30 feet. Ms. Hagen stated she had not <br /> heard a reason. <br /> Commissioner Allen stated she would like the height, with the exception of the dome, to be <br /> 30 feet as recommended by staff. She suggested a single story versus two story for the <br /> community center building. She requested additional articulation where visible and appropriate. <br /> Commissioner Gaidos agreed with articulation and indicated support for the architecture, <br /> detailing, design, colors and materials and proposed building and dome height. <br /> Commissioner Pace stated the applicant had done a nice job and suggested additional <br /> breaking of massing on the second story. <br /> Commission Ritter agreed that the design as submitted was close to the 30-foot requirements <br /> and reminded his fellow Commissioners to not rule from the bench. <br /> Commissioner Nibert expressed his agreement with the materials mentioned for Discussion <br /> Point 4a. Ms. Hagen confirmed the additional stone elements and gable. He suggested the <br /> applicant provide information on the height over 30 feet. <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 10 April 14, 2021 <br />good screening around the Community Center <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 10 April 14, 2021 <br />