My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 01/11/84
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
PC 01/11/84
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:40:50 AM
Creation date
4/24/2007 4:55:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/11/1984
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 01/11/84
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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 />January 11, 1984 <br />Page 5 <br />Mr. Detrick stated they agree with the recommendations of the staff report except <br />for proposed Condition No. 6. They will have trouble complying with that condition <br />because the athletic club is a concrete tilt-up structure. He said trying to match the <br />color would not be aesthetically effective and would have serious economical considerations. <br />He explained their plan with regard to the athletic club. They plar- to berm the frontage <br />area to make the wall appear to go away. He indicated it is hard to deal with because <br />of the massiveness of the structure. He stated on the side of the building tennis courts <br />will be the buffer. He felt the back of the athletic club was not much of a problem <br />visually. Commissioner Lindsey asked Mr. Detrick if he could work with staff concerning <br />the matching of the existing club to the hotel. Mr. Harris stated the structure would <br />be enhanced if the texture was changed. <br />Commissioner Getty felt that the area was proposed to be heavily landscaped. Mr. <br />Harris stated that while this is true it would be impossible to make the large massive <br />wall disappear. <br />Mr. Detrick felt they could effectively treat the structure with berming and landscaping. <br />Commissioner lindsey felt this could be worked out with staff to avoid an eyesore. Commissioner <br />Getty agreed. <br />Dr. Howard Long, 363 St. Mary street, supported this development . He stated the <br />way it will be constructed will be protective against and winds and the sun. He suggested <br />that perhaps a shuttle bus could be used from BART. He suggested Ivy might hide the <br />massiveness of the existing structure. <br />Jack Hovingh, 4250 Muirwood Drive, stated he supported this project. He said it is <br />nice to see the structure will not be right next to the freeway. He asked what kind <br />of signing would be proposed for proper direction to the hotel. The architect explained <br />their plan for landscaping along Johnson Drive and deferred to Mr. Detrick concerning <br />the signing. Commissioner lindsey asked where the sign for the hotel would go to which <br />Mr. Detrick replied that they have not finalized their plans for signing as yet. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Getty, seconded byCommissioner Lindsey that <br />the mitigated negative declaration prepared for case PUD-83-11 be adopted inasmuch <br />as project approval would not have a significant effect on the environment because <br />of conditions imposed in project approval. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Getty, Lindsey and Acting Chairman Wilson <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: Commissioners Doherty, Arrigoni and Chairman Jamieson <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />Resolution No. 2412 was entered and adopted recommending approval of the negative <br />declaration prepared for case PUD-83-11 as motioned. <br />-5- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.