My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 101304
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
PC 101304
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2017 9:46:39 AM
Creation date
3/16/2005 1:27:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/13/2004
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 101304
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
- Ms. Nerland advised that such a discussion may be agendized and noted that because of <br />current staffing resources, a comprehensive staff report may not be available. <br />Commissioner Fox believed that most of the sign ordinance was fine and wished to <br />address window and temporary signage. <br />Commissioner Maas advised that as a business owner, she did not believe that doing <br />business was as easy as it used to be, and any kind of additional regulation made it more <br />difficult. She noted that the number of complaints had been so small that opening up the <br />broader signage issue was not the best use of time. <br />Commissioner Sullivan disagreed with Commissioner Maas's assessment and did not <br />believe that such promotional signs should be displayed on a permanent basis. <br />Ms. Nerland cautioned against pulling pieces of an ordinance from another city and <br />inserting them into Pleasanton's ordinances. She noted that staff must ensure that the <br />entire ordinance works as a whole and was not internally contradictory. Staff could <br />provide the Commission with a copy of ordinances from the other cities to use as a basis <br />of the discussion prior to arriving at a consensus. She noted that the Commission could <br />initiate the ordinance process to the Council. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />AYES: Commissioners Arkin, Kameny, Roberts, and Sullivan. <br />NOES: Commissioner Maas. <br />ABSTAIN: None. <br />RECUSED: None. <br />ABSENT: None. <br />The motion carried. <br />The Planning Commission recessed for a break at 8:30 p.m. <br />Chairperson Roberts reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m. <br />d. PDR-316, The Prunine Shed, Mario Saavedra <br />Workshop to review and provide comments on a proposal to demolish the existing <br />building at 347 Division Street and to construct an approximately <br />6,390-square-foot two-story building. Zoning for the property is C-C (Central <br />Commercial) Downtown Revitalization District. <br />Commissioner Kameny advised that because of his friendship with the applicant, he <br />would recuse himself from this matter. <br />Commissioner Fox took Commissioner Kameny's place on the dais. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 13, 2004 Page 9 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.