My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 05/14/86
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
PC 05/14/86
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 11:05:39 AM
Creation date
4/23/2007 4:05:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/14/1986
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 05/14/86
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
Minutes <br />Planning Commission <br />May 14, 1986 <br />Commissioner Innes asked Mr. Schnugg if a motel will be proposed <br />for the site. Mr. Schnugg said not at this time but they do have <br />a decent location for a hotel site. Hotel people, however, have <br />indicated they feel there is not a market in Pleasanton for more <br />hotel rooms. <br />Commissioner Innes knew of at least three specific Long locations <br />where there was no signage other than what was on the walls of <br />the outside of the buildings. Mr. Schnugg said these comments <br />could be best addressed by Long's Drug Store. He then discussed <br />visibility of the Stoneridge Mall area vs. the subject site from <br />the freeways. They are only suggesting their major tenants be <br />allowed to put in project signs. <br />The Commissioners then discussed with Mr. Schnugg pole-type signs <br />in the City. <br />Chairman Lindsey indicated that if this were approved, he would <br />like it have no more than 3 tenants on it, and no future pole <br />signs. <br />Commissioner Innes felt he wanted to get an overall direction for <br />signage in this development underway as he did not want an <br />applicant to come in four months from now with an entirely <br />different proposal. The entrance to the City should be properly <br />addressed. <br />BMW <br />Marty Inderbitzen, 62 West Neal Street, represented <br />J. Gordon Bingham. He reviewed their proposal pointing out the <br />changes made to their original proposal after discussing the <br />matter with staff. They feel that the Pylon sign is a very <br />important element to identify the project as an individual <br />project within a larger development He stated Mr. Bingham <br />avoided larger business parks. They chose this site because of <br />its location in the proximity of the freeway exposure. The Pylon <br />with the circle is the logo of BMW. The project will be a <br />prototype new out of Germany. Others will come to the facility <br />to view it. He then referred to the Pylon sign for Berkey's <br />Porsche, Audi dealership. He also read from the National Car <br />Rental Staff report recommending approval of 25' signs. <br />Commissioner Innes discussed with Mr. Inderbitzen the BMW logo <br />and height from the ground level. Commissioner Innes asked if <br />the applicant wouldn't get the same exposure without the same <br />monument sign but by putting the BMW logo on the west facade of <br />the building. Mr. Inderbitzen did not feel BMW would use that. <br />The change would violate the architectural integrity of the <br />building. Commissioner Innes acknowledged that the Pylon sign <br />was probably complementary to the building, but did not feel the <br />project needs that much signing. Mr. Inderbitzen reiterated the <br />project is a prototype, is visible from the freeway and that is <br />why the applicant has chosen the site. <br />- 3 - <br />._ ,.._ _._ _ _ ._ r <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.