PC 02/12/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ken Crews, 6612 Owens Drive, represented Signature Properties. They have reviewed the staff report and accept the conditions of approval with the exception of the Condition 23 (hours of construction). They would like to insert after the hours listed of 7 am to 6 pm "unless otherwise approved by the Directors of Planning or Public Works." They are on a tight time table. They wish to be in the building by August 1997. They hope not to have to extend the hours, but would like to have that flexibility. Mr. Crews advised that they do not object to Condition 72 in that the condition "encourages" and does not "require" they work with the Civic Arts Commission. They consider their fountain as public art. Commissioner Cooper inquired if there could be more color incorporated in the building. The speaker stated that the theme is that of Italianate which lends to more earthtone colors; however, he feels that the rendering does not fully justify the colors and textures of the building. A color/materials board was distributed Kenneth Cove, architect, spoke about the building colors. The color is mixed into the concrete, the color will be uniform and will have a sandblast finish. In response to Chair Barker, the applicants advised they are quite a distance away from the residents in Hacienda Park. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Lutz liked the design of the building and is pleased to see the overall height was achieved at under 37 feet. Commissioner Cooper stated that it is a distance from the residential development and feels it would be acceptable to increase the operation hours. Chair Barker feels that earlier than 7 am is too early. Commissioner Cooper thought they would want to work later into the evening like 7 pm or 7:30 pm. Chair Barker is willing as long as they notice the neighborhood of the extended hours of construction and any complaints should be directed to City staff. Chair Barker feels Condition 72 should state the applicant shall work with the Civic Arts Commission to provide public art. She feels this applicant has been negligent in providing public amenities in previous projects. Commissioner Cooper agreed that public art is important and this applicant has a major presence in Pleasanton. Commissioner Lutz was not agreeable to require the applicant to provide public art in the project, feeling this gave too much authority to the Civics Art Commission. After discussion, the previous intent was to condition the applicant to work with the Commission. Chair Barker would like to take it a step further that the applicants are required to provide public art in the project. Mr. Beougher stated that the Planning Commission cannot condition an applicant based on past performance. Considerable discussion ensued regarding whether or not applicants should be encouraged to work with the Civics Art Commission or required to provide public art. Planning Commission Minutes Page 28 February 12, 1997