My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN051695
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCMIN051695
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:18 AM
Creation date
5/20/1999 11:16:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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).
View images
View plain text
It was moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Ms. Dennis, that Ordinance No. 1655 be <br />introduced, to be read by title only and waiving further reading thereof, approving the staff <br />recommendations; authorizing an agreement (to be approved by the City Attorney) to proceed <br />prior to the effective date of the ordinance; and continuing discussion on the one sign to 6/6/95. <br /> <br />The r011 ¢a~ll vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Dennis, Mohr, Pico, and Mayor Tarver <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: Councilmember Michelotti <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Mr. Owing questioned the use of directional signs that are now in use at the Home Depot <br />and questioned if they are legal. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if the signage that Mr. Owing mentioned is addressed to the directional <br />sign question issue as opposed to advertising on a complex that has multiple uses. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said he would check into the matter and see if there are illegal signs being <br />used. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis requested clarification of the sign drawings. She asked if the drawings are <br />the applicants' and if they show the sign where they would like to have it. She asked if there <br />are drawings of the existing pylon signs. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated the sign is about 26 feet tall and is visible from the freeway. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush wanted the Council to clarify that the applicants could proceed at this time <br />even though the ordinance isn't in effect and secondly if they go ahead, whether the parking and <br />trash enclosure improvements can remain in all events. <br /> <br /> The Council agreed that the applicants can proceed at this time (with agreement) and that <br />the parking and trash enclosure improvements can remain. <br /> <br />Item 6e <br />PUD-90-19-3M. Boulevard Development/Mo!!er Ranch Residential Development <br />Application for a minor modification, to an approved PUD development plan to modify the <br />apnroved develo_oment plan governing the Moller Ranch residential development to fi) <br />allow an increase in the Size of the 58 homes on the small. production 10ts; (2) allow an <br />increase in the Floor Area Ratio for 9 homes: {3) chan~e the minimum side yard <br />requirements; and (4) add a setback standard to maintain the side yard hOUse ~eparation <br />as currently approved. The subject proposal would be applicable to the development within <br />the former quarry area within the Mo!!er Ranch residential development. Zoning for the <br /> <br />05/16/95 <br /> -13- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.