My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 092408
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
PC 092408
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:38:10 PM
Creation date
11/26/2008 1:16:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/24/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 092408
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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 stated that she has driven past McDonald's several times and it <br />does not tend to have a flag flying from its flagpole. <br />Ms. Decker referred to the site plan and noted that the flagpole is represented by the <br />small circle located at the exit point of the drive-through at the southwest corner. <br />Commissioner O'Connor noted that the flagpole on that front corner would be very <br />obvious from a main thoroughfare. Ms. Decker agreed and added that staff has <br />considered flag poles as well as monopole trees and considers that context of the <br />surrounding area. She indicated that the City has taken exception to flagpoles <br />because they look more like big power poles than a flag pole. She noted that the <br />diameter at the base stays consistent all throughout the pole at approximately <br />18 inches as opposed to a regular flag pole which has an a base of approximately <br />six inches and tapers off to the top. He added that staff has had a couple of <br />incidents with proposals in the City where exceptions have taken place, and staff is <br />very cautious with flagpoles to ensure that the size of the flag that would be flown is <br />not larger than what is depicted on the design. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that the flagpole would not be so visible if it were <br />located back into the parking lot areas or between the buildings. <br />Chair Blank stated that the picture shown on page 2 of the staff report are not drawn <br />to scale as the buildings themselves are not of the same size, which makes the <br />proposal appear to have less impact. <br />Ms. Soo noted that the building itself is about 24 feet tall, and the existing tower is <br />about 36 feet tall. <br />Chair Blank noted that there is the existing tower element plus a second tower <br />element on top of it. He inquired if there would be any changes to the base tower <br />elements in terms of diameter, height, and area. Ms. Soo stated that the base tower <br />elements would remain the same. She then showed the cross section of the towers <br />on the screen. <br />Commissioner Narum noted that the tower has an arch design. <br />Ms. Decker stated that this design is on all four sides to provide a little bit more <br />relief. She added that as earlier pointed out, the height of the tower does not <br />change in terms of height; a smaller nine-foot tall cupola was added which would <br />house all of the panels while the equipment is located within the existing tower. She <br />noted that staff believed this was a good compromise to having the tower continue <br />upward in its same dimension and provides some visual relief. <br />Chair Blank inquired if the golden arch logo would be reproduced on all four sides <br />whereas it is currently only on the front side. Ms. Decker replied that the additional <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 24, 2008 Page 31 of 41 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.