My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 05/27/87
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
PC 05/27/87
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 11:10:22 AM
Creation date
4/19/2007 4:22:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/27/1987
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 05/27/87
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
Minutes <br />Planning Commission <br />5/27/87 <br />Commission take into consideration his request to make sure that <br />access is retained as it now exists for his property. There are <br />currently three parking spaces in front his his property. <br />Mr. Swift said there is no intent to drastically change access to <br />Mr. Moriago's property. If anything, parking should be increased <br />at the cul-de-sac. <br />Commissioner Tarver was concerned with the architectural style in <br />terms of the location of the project. <br />Commissioner Berger was concerned with the blandness of colors. <br />Whereas it might be appropriate in Santa Clara, she didn't feel <br />it would be appropriate for Pleasanton. She would suggest the <br />applicant work with the staff to come up with a little more "eye <br />appeal." She had no problem particularly with the architecture <br />other than she would prefer horizontal vs vertical siding. <br />Commissioner Mahern stated she also did not like vertical siding. <br />This change alone could improve the entire exterior of the <br />project. Commissioner Mahern also did not like white on white <br />and felt it was not appropriate for the downtown area. Further <br />she felt the project was very dense and did not offer a lot of <br />amenities. At this time she could not support the project a <br />proposed. <br />Vice Chairman Michelotti agreed with the other Commissioners. <br />She had problems with the architecture, particularly after <br />reviewing the photographs of a similar development in Santa <br />Clara. The building needs accent colors. <br />Vice Chairman Michelotti then reviewed the options of the <br />Planning Commissioners, to deny, to deny without prejudice, or to <br />continue for more work between the staff and applicant. <br />Commissioner Mahern felt she would like the project redesigned, <br />with more color and horizontal siding. <br />Mr. Rubnitz stated he would prefer to continue the matter so he <br />could work with staff concerning the siding and other matters. <br />He felt, in itself, horizontal siding would change the character <br />of the architecture considerably. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Mahern, seconded by <br />Commissioner Berger that Case PUD-87-6 be continued to June 10, <br />1987. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYE5: Commissioners Berger, Mahern and Vice Chairman <br />Michelotti <br />NOES: Commissioner Tarver <br />ABSENT: Commissioner Hoyt and Chairman Lindsey <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />- 9 - <br />_.~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.