My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 03/23/1994
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1994
>
PC 03/23/1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2017 2:35:04 PM
Creation date
6/2/2005 10:56:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/23/1994
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 03/23/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 />the rear of the building. Staff does not feel it does. Addresses are not considered a sign <br />under the ordinance. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS CWSED <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk admitted to not noticing the subject building in the many trips he's <br />made to Ray's Electric. If the applicant will work with staff on the design, Chairman <br />McGuirk will approve the addition of the sign to the rear of his building. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright stated his belief that the business should have only one sign and <br />establish business through other means such as advertising. He does not concur with <br />Chairman McGuirk and does not approve of the additional sign. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh concurs with Commissioner Wright. He supports the alternatives <br />proposed by staff, and, therefore, supports staffs recommendations. <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti is concerned about the size of the proposed sign. She would like a <br />smaller sign as well as the addition of the address. She also feels a monument sign is <br />another option. She does agree with the applicant that the configuration of the building is <br />such that passing traffic will not notice signage on the building until they are passed it. <br /> <br />Commissioner Finch stated his dislike for rear signage. He proposed the front sign be <br />increased in size and add the address to the rear of the building. He feels a sign on the back <br />of the building would be a detraction to the building design. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Hovingh, seconded by Commissioner Wright, <br />denying approval of AP-94-01 and upholding the decision of the Zoning Admini~trator. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />A YES: Commissioners Hovingh, Finch, Wright <br />NOES: Commissioner Michelotti and Chairman McGuirk <br />ABSENT: Commissioner Mahern <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC-94-13 was entered and adopted denying approval of AP-94-01 as <br />motioned. <br /> <br />d. V-94-04. Ron and Kav Vella <br />Application for a variance from the Municipal Code to allow a 5+ foot encroachment <br />into the required 23-foot side yard setback for an existing single-family residence located <br />at 8519 Lupine Court. Zoning for the property is PUD (planned Unit Development) - <br />Low Density Residential District. <br /> <br />Application withdrawn by applicant. Superseded by PUD modification. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />March 23, 1994 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.