PC 01/27/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. PC-99-05 was entered and adopted as motioned. Commissioner Sullivan stated he is opposed to the motion due to his opposition in amending the Downtown Specific Plan on the eve of initiating the Specific Plan; and, other land use issues related to the hotel that should be discussed as part of the Specific Plan update. (Recess taken from 10:00 p.m. to 10:05 p.m.) Commissioner Maas noted that she has a conflict of interest relating to V-99-02/Z-98-279, Specialty Sales, and will be abstaining from discussion and voting. V-99-02/Z-98-279, Specialty Sales Application for a variance from the Pleasanton Municipal code and sign design approval to allow a painted mural and an approximately 205 square-foot painted wall sign on the Spring Street side of the" Specialty Sales" building located at 4321 First Street. Zoning for the property is C~C (Central Commercial) District and Downtown Revitalization Overlay District. Marion Pavan, Associate Planner, referenced the a staffreport dated January 27, 1999 and highlighted key areas contained in the report including background information, project description, existing signs, Pleasanton Municipal Code, and proposed mural and sign design. In conclusion, he stated that staffs recommendation is to make the variance findings as stated in the staffreport and adopt a resolution approving the applicant's request for the variance, Case V-99-002 and design review, Case Z-98-279, subject to the draft conditions of approval listed in Exhibit "B." PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Discussion ensued relating to removal of the sign when business vacates the building, repainting the whole building, and presence of existing signs on the building. In response to Commissioner inquiries, the applicant, Steve Barlow, responded that he is in agreement with the staff report and with painting the entire building. Chairperson Kumaran requested that painting of the entire building be a condition of approval. Bruce Fiedler, 251 Kottinger, noted that a vibrant sign is appropriate for the property. The applicant stated his intent is to beautify the building and not to identify the business. In conclusion, he requested that the Commission approve his application. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Roberts questioned staff about Finding No. 1 which seemed to imply that the applicant was being denied privileges enjoyed by others and noted that a larger sign is appropriate for this business due to business being located on a thoroughfare and not downtown. She commented on the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 8 January 27, 1999