My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 04/10/96
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
PC 04/10/96
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2017 3:59:20 PM
Creation date
2/23/2005 3:51:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/10/1996
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 4/10/96
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
<br />" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk asked if the awning color is a corporate trademark. Mr. McClure <br />advised that when possible Boston Market uses the red and white striped awning and <br />illumination and is considered part of their mark.eting concept. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh feels the awnings are very visible as they are presently located and <br />feels the photo examples provided are not relevant to this decision. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk commented the awnings would enhance the look, however, because <br />this is an in-line building, he cannot approve the relocation of the awnings. He would <br />consider an awning design program for the entire center if brought forward by the property <br />owner. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright advised that he supports the awnings on the comer unit and feels the <br />end unit anchors perfectly with TGI Friday's. He feels the added color would enhance the <br />building. He supports the appeal. <br /> <br />Commissioner Dove commented that because this is the end unit, the awnings would be more <br />acceptable, and wondered if a compromise would be to add illumination to the existing <br />awnings to make them more visible. Commissioner Wright commented he would not support <br />the illumination of the awnings because of the comments made by the adjacent residents. <br /> <br />Chairman Lutz does not want to support the change in awnings for the single unit, but would <br />consider a proposal by the property owner for an awning program for the entire shopping <br />center. Commissioner Hovingh concurred. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh motioned, seconded by Commissioner McGuirk, upholding the <br />decision of the Zoning Administrator denying this application for design review approval <br />for the relocation of the existing awnings to the exterior facade of the pedestrian arcade. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br />Commissioners Hovingh, McGuirk, and Chairman Lutz <br />Commissioners Dove and Wright <br />Commissioner Barker <br />None <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC 96-19 was entered upholding the Zoning Administrator's denial of <br />Z-96-23, as motioned. <br /> <br />The applicant was advised of the 15 day period to appeal this decision, and Chairman Lutz <br />advised there would be support from the Commission if the center's owner came forward <br />with a program for the entire center, <br /> <br />Planning Commission MInutes <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />Aprll 10, 1996 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.