My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN062684
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
CCMIN062684
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:50:09 AM
Creation date
11/9/1999 11:27:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
Application of Callahan-Pentz Proper~ies~ Pleasanton~ for design review approval for <br />an approximately 41~000 sq. ft. office building to be located on the north side of <br />West Las Positas Boulevard, between Gibraltar Drive and Tassajara Creek. Zoning for <br />~he property is PgD (Planned Unit Development)-Industrial/Commercial and Offices <br />District <br /> Mr. Harris presented his report (SR 84:350) dated June 19, 1984, regarding this <br />matter. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open on this item. <br /> <br /> Mr. Howard Sword, 2171 Goldcrest, representing Caltahan Pentz Properties, stated <br />he has reviewed and concurs with the staff report. <br /> <br /> No one in the audience spoke in opposition to this item. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Councilmember Brandes, and seconded by Councilmember Mohr, that <br />Resolution No. 84-324, approving the application of Callahan-Pentz Properties, for <br />design review approval for an approximately 41,000 sq. ft. office building to be <br />located on the north side of West Las Positas Boulevard, between Gibraltar Drive and <br />Tassajara Creek, subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolu- <br />tion No. 2482, be adopted. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Butler, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br />Appeal of Stanley Cherry of a decision of the Design Review Board limiting the size <br />of an outdoor disOlay in front of the Big "0" Tire Store located at 3688 Washington <br />Street. The property is zoned PUD-Commercial District <br /> Mr. Harris presented his report (SR 84:347) dated June 19, 1984, regarding this <br />matter. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open on this item. <br /> <br /> Mr. Stanley Cherry, 3688 Washington Street, presented pictures and displays of <br />various Big "0" stores. He stated he felt his business should not be treated differ- <br />ently than a service station use and it basically provides the same service except <br />for pumping gasoline. He stated he had been advised by the Director of Planning that <br />if he reduced the size of his outdoor display from 90 sq. ft. to half that size there <br />would not be any problem, but now he has been limited to 10 sq. ft., which he felt <br />was inappropriate for the signing of his business. He added there have not been any <br />complaints from surrounding merchants relative to his display. <br /> <br /> Mr. Craig Atkowski, 3S52 Lowry, Napa, representing Big "0" Tires, stated he felt <br />this use should be allowed, and suggested that the language might be changed to state <br />attractive instead of decorative display to sustain the business. He added this use <br />is the same service as a service station and should be treated equally. <br /> <br /> Mr. Jim Davidson, Martinez, Director of Advertising for Big "O" Tires, stated the <br />use should be compared with a gas station service. He presented a survey which re- <br />vealed that signs are the number one way of encouraging customers, and that the re- <br />quested display is necessary to the advertising for this business. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer presented a letter from Frank Auf der Maur and Konrad Rickenbach <br />dated June 26, 1984, stating they felt this would be a detriment to the area, raise <br />possible vandalism and theft potentials with repercussions to neighboring business, <br /> <br /> 8. 6/26/84 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.