My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 04/25/72
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1970-1979
>
1972
>
PC 04/25/72
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2017 11:46:02 AM
Creation date
4/30/2007 4:20:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/25/1972
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 04/25/72
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
"sAN~° - SANTON <br />4~$ y CITY of PLEA <br />~~ ~'i. <br />`~~~~° Planning Commission <br />NN~~ S <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />Data April 25, 1972 <br />Time : 8:os PM <br />PIaCe: Pleasanton Justice Court <br />Chairman Garrigan directed the Commissioner <br />attention to the staff report where the <br />staff recommended that perhaps a mock-up <br />could be constructed and reviewed before a <br />decision on the sign approval is given. <br />Commissioner Hirst conceded that the sign <br />would be beneficial to the community as an <br />informational measure, however, there were <br />design problems involved. Commissioner Pons <br />expressed a similar position, as did <br />Commissioner Pereira. Commissioner Wood <br />felt the sign was not in character with the <br />downtown area. <br />Chairman Garrigan also felt that the Frankli <br />Savings & Loan building is a truly attrac- <br />tive addition to the C.B.D. area, but felt <br />that the sign as petitioned, would detract <br />from the overall appearance of the site. <br />The applicant was asked if he would like to <br />continue the matter and resubmit his appli- <br />cation. <br />After some discussion, the applicant request d <br />that the Commission make a decision on the <br />matter that evening. He did state that he <br />would be willing to construct two sign mock-u s, <br />one as the application now before them and <br />another one completely different. <br />To this end, Commissioner Hirst, seconded <br />by Commissioner Wood, offered a motion <br />recommending that the mock-ups be made for <br />the Commission's review. However, with <br />two No votes from Commissioners Pereira and <br />Pons, and a subsequent withdrawal by the <br />applicant to the proposal, the motion died <br />for lack of support. <br />A resolution was then offered by Chairman <br />Garrigan denying Z-72-43 and V-72-11, as <br />petitioned, without prejudice. This reso- <br />lution was seconded by Commissioner Pereira <br />and carried unanimously. <br />-9- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.