My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 071305
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
PC 071305
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 3:21:22 PM
Creation date
3/9/2006 9:34:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/13/2005
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 071305
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
7_ MATTERS INITIATED SY COMMISSION MEM RERS <br />Blue A =ave Restaurant <br />Commissioner Roberts understood that the Pleasanton Downtown Association had not <br />appro vcd the blue color off the building and that it was being repainted with another color. <br />G'ommissioner Fox recalled that the red trim was not included in the plans and. inquired <br />whether the original color would be used. She requested information on that process. <br />She believed that the Planning Commission had requested notification if a paint color <br />were to be changed. <br />Commissioner Roberts noted that it was repainted without any submission to the City. <br />Ms. Dcckcr noted that there were two hearings on the Blue Agave; ona in October 2004 <br />which presented the yellow, red, and blue, and another in a November 1 O, 2004 hearing <br />after the original motions did not carry. The staff report rcfected that the applicant <br />agreed to paint the building with the existing colors; however, the motion reflected the <br />conditions of Exhibit B, which referenced the original colors. "l~he approval letter went <br />out, based on that recommendation and the motion That carried; the blue, red, and yellow <br />colors were allowed based on that approval letter. She noted that the red and yellow <br />swatches were generally in line with the C'ommission's desires, but the blue was a <br />brighter hue than what was approved with the swatch. She noted that they were fairly <br />close, based on brilliance seen in daylight. <br />Ms. Nerland noted that this discussion should be agendized for further discussion. She <br />rioted that the approval letter did allow the red color. <br />Con~missioncr Arkin would like some recommendation to prevent a future occurrence. <br />Ms. Decker noted that this occurrence was more of an anomaly in that the Commission <br />does revise conditions of approval and restate those details in the motion. <br />Mahalo Grill <br />Ms_ Uccker noted that there had been several meetings addressing the blue color of this <br />building and that an alternate color had bectt approved by the building owner and <br />applicant for this building. The alternate color, called Lemongrass, is trtore ot~ a tan color <br />with a hint of green. <br />Larkspur Latidin~ <br />Commissioner hox noted that there has been a banner at this location for four to six <br />months and inquired whether they had gone through the City's sign program. <br />Ms_ Decker noted that there was a change in ownership at this site and that they had just <br />completed their sign program; it was approved by C:o uncil_ "I'he signs should be replaced <br />in the near future. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2005 Page 13 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.