My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 04/24/96
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
PC 04/24/96
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2017 3:59:34 PM
Creation date
2/23/2005 3:55:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/24/1996
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 4/24/96
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 />Mr. Laube presented pictures/renderings of their proposed signs. <br /> <br />Dime Churka, 507 St, 30lm St., stated that a long banner stretcheu across the building would <br />obstruct the beauty of the building, however, she believes the proposed sign does not obstruct <br />the building. Mr. Laube has been very responsible in taking the music sign down <br />immediately after the event. Ms. Churka noted the sign on the fence is very small, is not a <br />detraction, and believes Mr. Laube needs some signage to attract business to his patio. Ms. <br />Churka asked the Commission to support Mr. Laube's variance. <br /> <br />Ms. Churka also noted that the window signs of the liquor store are very detracting to the <br />area and should be reviewed by staff. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright finds the fence sign unique and will support it. He cannot support the <br />banner in front, unless it were designed as a pennant and coordinated with the Hotel. <br />Commissioner Wright feels the fence sign design is okay; however, he feels adding some <br />architectural interest such as a finial design would blend it in better with the design of the <br />Hotel. <br /> <br />Chairman Lutz agreed there are other signs that are less tasteful than what is proposed by the <br />applicant; however, to grant the variance, staff and the Commission must be able to make the <br />variance findings. He stated that he cannot make those [mdings. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh stated he cannot make the variance findings. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright stated he can make the findings for a variance for the fence sign only. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk feels the proposed plastic sign does not fit the Downtown character, <br />and if a sign could be designed more in keeping with the Downtown character, he may <br />support it. However, he would like to see if the business increases without approving the <br />sign; he feels that business is growing in the Downtown. He cannot support the application. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk motioned, seconded by Chairman Lutz, recommending denial <br />of Case V-96-3/Z-96-57. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br />Commissioners Barker, Hovingh, McGuirk and Chairman Lutz <br />Commissioner Wright <br />None <br />None <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC 96-25 was entered denying Case V -96-03/Z-96-57, as motioned. <br /> <br />. Mr. Laube was advised of his right to appeal this decision to the City Council. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />April 24, 1996 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.