CCMIN062000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Item 6d PAP-09 (PSDR-1}. Robert Cox and Jeffrey Torres. (SR00:172) Brian Swi~ presented the staff report. Mr. Rober~ Cox and Mr. Jeffrey Toms, Olde Towne Antiques, 3440 Stanley Boulevard, Suites J & K, have appealed the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Cox thanked Mr. William Hirst and Mr. Peter MacDonald for providing counsel to them and for their help with interpreting the City's signage code. Mr. Cox said that the complex was developed approximately 25 years ago and the signage program was assigned at that thne. This is the same signage program that Olde Towne Antiques is being asked to follow at this time. The signage program was approved in 1974 and was clearly visible to motorists on California and Stanley at that time. Signage was not as important at that time as it is now, because other complexes went up around us. He noted that this was the first complex to go up in that area. As other complexcs went up around it, their signage program increased and at the same time the signage visibility of their building decreased. The first way this occurred was that the complex signage was blocked by the Peugeot building that went up. Most of the signage on this building went up along the side driveway tbr a majority of the tenants. That is completely blocked at this time by this building. Them is a nile in effect which may apply to these signs, rendering them exempt because they are blocked by this building. The second fact is that the complex is overpowered by the signage of the other buildings in the area. Clearly the City never intended for the complex to be without elI~ctive signage in the immediate area. (He presented photographs lbr an overview of the signage in the immediate area.) Most of these busincsses shown are for retail products and services and his business offers a retail product as well. There are any number of businesses in the immediate area that have been afforded permanent signage to Stanley Boulevard traffic. They do not oppose nor are they complaining about any oftha signage programs. They are just using them as cxan~ples. Rynick Tires has approximately 572 square feet of signage within its whole complex. Winston Tires has approximately 300 square feet. Part of that includes a monument sign, which he understands was approved~ but is not up at this time. Big O Tires has effectively about 300 sqtmre feet; Diablo Autobody, a few blocks away from their location and has a lot of visibility to Stanley Boulevard, has roughly 450 square feet of signage. Autoiron has 100 square feet of signage, with only 25 feet of building frontage on Washington Avenue, not Stanley. He has over 150 feet of building feet on Stanley and Califomia. The Planning Commission has allowed us less than 80 square feet of signage. tie does not see how tt~s is masonable or fair in comparison. At the llir end of the complex, one of the signs for this building has been allowed to face traffic on Stanley Boulevard, coming from Bemai and Valley. The sign that we are asking for does exactly the same thing and the signs facing California and Washington was essentially denied by the planning Commissiom Mr. Cox said that overall, all of these businesses mentioned have signage which faces one or more frontages and primarily the signage is geared to S'tanley Boulevard, targeting traffic in that area. Monument signs in the neighborhood afford the business the Pleasanton City Council 21 06/20/00 Minutes