Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes <br />Planning Commission <br />January 22, 1986 <br />apply to North Pleasanton. Mr. Kinzel indicated that traffic <br />studies take into account vacant spaces. Commissioner Innes <br />reiterated that he doesn't feel the data submitted would support <br />a change in 20% and the changes should wait for empirical counts <br />in the Fall. <br />Commissioner Lindsey asked when Mr. Kinzel would estimate the <br />data for North Pleasanton will be completed. Mr. Kinzel <br />indicated it would probably be in the Fall because not all of the <br />TSM measures are yet in place. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Innes seconded by Commissioner <br />Michelotti that changes to the traffic study be recommended <br />incorporating recommendations 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and add "by March 15, <br />1986" in No. 6. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Hoyt, Innes, Michelotti, Wellman and <br />Vice Chairman Lindsey <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: Chairman Wilson <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />Resolution No. 2752 was entered and adopted making the <br />recommendations of the Traffic Assumptions as motioned. <br />Parapet Signs and <br />Z-85-408, The Associates <br />Application of The Associates for a signing program for their <br />building located at 4301 Hacienda Drive. Zoning for the property <br />is PUD (Planned Unit Development)-Industrial, Commercial and <br />Offices District. <br />Vice Chairman Lindsey announced that the two above items would be <br />discussed simultaneously and voted on separately. <br />Mr. Swift presented the two staff reports. <br />Commissioner Wellman addressed Item No. 8 and asked if 24" <br />letters are currently being used on freeway oriented signs. Mr. <br />Swift indicated such letters are a different size, typically <br />larger, but that the 24" letters referred to were meant to apply <br />to first and second-story signs. <br />Commissioner Innes felt signing on the first floor level would <br />not be too effective as it would be too low. He asked if staff <br />had only looked at allowing only the logo on the parapet. Mr. <br />Swift indicated that staff had not. Commissioner Innes asked <br />staff if the guidelines were adopted would consideration be given <br />to parapet signing facing residential areas. Mr. Swift responded <br />that three story or larger buildings using parapet signage would <br />not likely be next to a residential area. Commissioner Innes <br />pointed out that there is a development on HOpyard across from <br />the residential development. Mr. Swift further stated that what <br />would be adopted would be policies not ordinances. <br />- 10 - <br />~ _. <br />