My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 082207
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
PC 082207
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 3:31:14 PM
Creation date
10/16/2007 3:39:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/22/2007
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding whether the major difference <br />between the two renderings was to “Pleasantonize” the design, Ms. Decker confirmed <br />that was the case and that they intended to soften some of the harder edges and create <br />more architectural detail as well as examine other materials. She added that while the <br />Pleasanton character is softer than this example, one of the challenges of this site is its <br />location between more severe office/industrial buildings. Staff did not want to go <br />towards a significantly residential appearance, given its location, which would make it <br />appear more out of place. Staff felt that the additional siding and the roofing detailing do <br />soften the architecture considerably and allowed it to blend with the surrounding area. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br /> <br />Eric Hefffner, applicant, stated that in addition to the walkway being offered to the City, <br />they were offering an office for the Pleasanton Police Department and the BART Police <br />Department. He noted that would enable people to make reports to the Police <br />Department more easily. He added that the signage on the emergency vehicle access <br />(EVA) should make the residents feel more secure and give more of a community feel. <br />He indicated that they did not have any signed retail leases at this time, although they <br />were engaged in discussions with several retailers. He clarified that the retail space <br />measured 14,400 square feet as opposed to the 12,000 square feet noted in the staff report. <br />Based on the Commission’s comments, the retailers would have a number of <br />conveniences within one store, including a dry cleaners, coffee shop, florist, pharmacy, <br />fresh fruits and food, and a deli. He noted that the market would be determined by the <br />retailer, and they believed that although they did not have a signed lease, they had sincere <br />interest. <br /> <br />Chek-Fong Tang, lead architect, noted that in terms of the common open space, the <br />previous proposal was approximately 0.7 acres. The net area of the building footprint <br />would be approximately four acres, and the open space has been increased to <br />approximately 1.1 acres. He noted that the number of units with private balconies was <br />increased to 75 percent of the units. The proposed FAR was 0.95 percent, and the open <br />space was increased by reducing the net rentable area on the project by approximately six <br />percent. He noted that the overall concept of the site plan and relationship to the BART <br />station had not changed, nor had its relationship to the project across the freeway. He <br />noted that in opening the building up to increase open space, some acoustic issues had <br />been presented from the freeway into the core of the project. He noted that they had to <br />find a more child-friendly play area as well. Previously, they had intended to <br />compartmentalize the courtyards to create more individual courtyards; they had since <br />created open space that flowed from courtyard to another, creating a larger feel as well as <br />larger open space. It also allowed one landscape program to flow into another. He noted <br />that the lawn area could be a passive open space with pathways between the courtyards. <br />He added that other amenities such as a fire pit or a barbeque area could be included, as <br />well as some public art on top of the podium gardens. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 22, 2007 Page 6 of 20 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.