My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 102214
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
PC 102214
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:23:14 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:18:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/22/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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
Program 7.1: As part of the design review process, encourage the installation of <br />distinctive landscaping, and discourage advertising signage and bright franchise <br />colors at major street entryways to the City. <br />Program 7.2: The City should be particularly sensitive to aesthetic considerations <br />when land -use planning in areas adjacent to City entryways. <br />Program 7.4: Give the Hopyard /1 -580 area a high priority for visual improvement <br />when making land -use and public investment decisions. <br />Policy 16: Discourage franchise and prototype architecture and signage. <br />She stated that she was not around when these were created and requested staff to <br />provide a little bit of history on what drove these policies and what was most important <br />in the thinking for these policies. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that he was not in the meetings when this language was decided upon <br />but that it is a relatively common theme. He stated that at its entrances to the <br />community, the City does not want a lot of visual clutter and land uses whose design is <br />often associated with fast -food restaurants with lots of bright colors and buildings with <br />standardized architecture and big pylon signs that could be seen from as far away as <br />possible. He indicated that when this use was evaluated, although it is a fast -food <br />establishment, staff was able to recommend approval of the project and found it to be <br />consistent with these Community Character Policies because the building is nicely <br />designed, does not have any garish colors, does not have big signage, and has an <br />architectural design that is at least as nice as or nicer than anything else in that <br />shopping center. <br />Commissioner Ritter asked staff what the stacking count for In -N -Out Burger drive -thru <br />is. He stated that it looks like it has about 20 but could be double; it just never seems <br />big enough on a Friday night. <br />Ms. Soo replied that she does not know what the stacking count is. <br />Commission Piper noted that the renderings include a flagpole but that she does not <br />recall reading that in the staff report. <br />Mr. Weinstein replied that a flagpole is proposed on the east side of the project. He <br />added that it is on the site plans as well. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br />Deborah Kerr, Consulting Project Manager for Chick- fil -A, San Diego, stated that she <br />has been involved in this project for well over two years. She indicated that she was <br />originally involved in the first site layout, and then the gradual transition of the project <br />into what is before the Commission tonight. She stated that when they first came to the <br />City, they presented a much more traditional, typical layout and design for the site with <br />the drive -thru wrapping around the building. She continued that they met with the <br />Director and Planning staff, and there was a call for something very special and unique <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 22, 2014 Page 6 of 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.