My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 062304
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
PC 062304
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2017 9:45:41 AM
Creation date
3/16/2005 1:13:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/23/2004
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 062304
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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 Fox believed that the following items made the design inappropriate for the <br />Downtown: <br />1. The various number of roof lines; <br />2. The lazge number and variety of windows along one side; and <br />3. The combination of the round windows and the angles near the column on the front <br />elevation. <br />4. Lack of symmetry. <br />5. The column was too whimsical. <br />She did not believe those design elements would be compatible with other Downtown <br />azchitecture. <br />Commissioner Sullivan noted that he liked the retro look to the building but not in this location. <br />He added that the Downtown Specific Plan was clear about what kind of buildings would fit <br />Downtown. He suggested that the applicants look at the Specific Plan for guidance. He was <br />comfortable with demolishing the existing building because it did not have historical <br />significance. <br />Commissioner Maas noted that the Commission did not want acookie-cutter appeazance to the <br />building. <br />Mr. Stoklosa noted that he did not agree with the peer-review process, but would re-think the <br />exterior design concept. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. <br />Bob Byrd noted that the project was on the same block where he owns two buildings and added <br />that he had lived Downtown most of his life. He believed that the building design was unique <br />and had a lot of character. He displayed a photo of the building across the street from him, <br />noting that the Specific Plan stated that there should be no buildings with residential rooflines or <br />materials. He noted that this other building had vinyl windows and cheap siding. He believed <br />the proposed building was of high quality. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />No action was taken. <br />The Planning Commission recessed for a break at 8:49 p.m. <br />Chairperson Roberts reconvened the meeting at 8:57 p.m. <br />e. PRZ-24, City of Pleasanton <br />Application to amend the City of Pleasanton's Personal Wireless Service Facility <br />Ordinance, Chapter 18.110 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code. The Personal Wireless <br />Service Facility Ordinance regulates the placement and design of wireless <br />communication facilities. <br />This item was continued to July 14, 2004. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 23, 2004 Page 10 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.