My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 053007
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
PC 053007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 3:30:04 PM
Creation date
8/17/2007 10:18:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/30/2007
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
<br />Commissioner Blank agreed with Commissioner O’Connor’s concerns regarding the <br />color palette. <br /> <br />Mr. O’Callaghan noted that he intended to have an authentic color and that the West <br />Coast Mission style was white and off-white; Southwest styles utilized a pastel/rust <br />palette. He noted that the Pleasanton Downtown Association liked the rust color and <br />noted that if the Planning Commission desired white, he could enliven the building with <br />flowers and foliage. He noted that he had worked with staff for over a year. He did not <br />know how the dormer had been removed from the elevations that staff had and added that <br />he liked it and would provide staff with copies. He noted that they intended to maximize <br />the outdoor dining element, and when the doors were opened, the 75 indoor seats could <br />be considered outdoor dining. He believed the second-floor outdoor dining deck would <br />be a great success and noted that it could stay open longer than the downstairs element. <br />He noted that they had considered using the split-faced block, that they had a more <br />contemporary building than when they switched to the Spanish style, and that using a <br />slumpstone was discussed. He noted that slumpstone could be made in any color and <br />added that he also considered stuccoing the entire building. However, he would rather <br />invest in the front of the building, and use masonry slumpstone on the sides of the <br />building, which would be less visually prominent. He noted that they would work with <br />staff to make the building as attractive as possible. He noted that the front doors and <br />upper transoms would have stained glass, designed for the building or for a tenant; the <br />doors would open completely downstairs. He had agreed to work with staff with respect <br />to the planting, and if the Commission had a specific interest in a particular kind of vine, <br />he would be amenable to that. Mr. O’Callaghan noted that the walkways would be an <br />inviting area rather than a dark hazard. <br /> <br />Commissioner O’Connor expressed concern about the hanging planter baskets possibly <br />obscuring the stained glass. Mr. O’Callaghan agreed that it was important not to overdo <br />the landscaping elements and noted that they would work with the landscape architect to <br />enhance and not overdecorate the building. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank stated that he would like to see a landscaping plan. <br /> <br />Commissioner Narum indicated that staff had a legitimate concern about the landscaping <br />pots at the base making the walkway less accessible. She would like a condition to <br />guarantee that landscaping would be included. <br /> <br />Mr. O’Callaghan stated that he would be happy with some climbing vines, hanging <br />baskets on wrought iron brackets, or both. <br /> <br />Al Bronzini, 719 Main Street, noted that he was the next-door neighbor to the former <br />Union Jack Pub and owned the antique furniture market. He believed the buildings were <br />between six to ten inches apart. He noted that he liked the appearance of the dormer and <br />that he was not concerned that the new building would be substantially taller than his <br />building. He expressed concern about the proximity of the construction to his new roof; <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 30, 2007 Page 4 of 20 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.