My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN040301
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCMIN040301
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:33 AM
Creation date
5/2/2001 10:39:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/3/2001
DOCUMENT NO
CCMINO40301
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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).
View images
View plain text
General Plan. She believed the proposed use was feasible, consistent with the General <br />Plan, with what had been approved in the past, with the design of the Business Park and <br />will support the surrounding uses. For the uses proposed by the Planning Commission, <br />she did not think a market analysis was necessary. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Dennis, seconded by Ms. Michelotti, to adopt <br />Resolution No. 01-028, to confirm the existing land use for the property and not to <br />conduct a market study for the site. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Campbell, Dennis, and Michelotti <br />NOES: Councilmember Ayala and Mayor Pico <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico indicated the next issue would be to decide whether to approve the <br />architecture of the building or refer it to the Planning Commission for design review. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Michelotti, seconded by Ms. Dennis, to approve the <br />architecture proposed for the building. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis commented that the photovoltaic units were not required to be <br />invisible if it would increase the efficiency. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell asked how the Planning Commission review of the design would <br />be different than what it did before. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico explained that the Commission did not review the design and did not <br />take action on that aspect of the application. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that the Commission did not take an official vote on the <br />architecture, site design or anything else. Some Commissioners felt the building, by <br />itself, was an attractive building, but also did not think it belonged on this site. He could <br />not guess how the Commission would have voted on this architecture for this site. <br /> <br />Ms. Dennis inquired about a peer review. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated that when staff believes it is necessary to have an architect <br />review the architecture of a building, it does that. Staff did not feel it was necessary in <br />this instance. The real issue with the Planning Commission was whether this was the <br />right design for this particular site, not whether it was a poorly designed building. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis liked the design, but felt the Planning Commission should have the <br />oppommity to review it. She wanted a peer review to be done so the Commission would <br />have that information as well. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 18 04/03/01 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.