My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 032509
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
PC 032509
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:39:54 PM
Creation date
9/23/2009 9:25:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/25/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
Commissioner Fox referred to the orientation of the sign and inquired if it was <br />mounted on the actual siding or was it hanging out perpendicular to the building. <br />She further inquired why the City would allow some to have window signs on the <br />second floor and others on the siding, noting that she believed the City would want <br />to be consistent in terms of signage. <br />Mr. Otto replied that the overhang signs are mounted on the siding and the blade <br />signs are perpendicular to the building. He added that the wall signs on the second <br />floor were purely building identification signs. <br />Commissioner Narum inquired what the percentage of sign space would be for a <br />12-square-foot window. <br />Mr. Otto replied that the sign coverage cannot exceed 25 percent and that some of <br />the window signs were approximately in the ten percent range. <br />Commissioner Narum inquired if the Sign Ordinance allows for every window to <br />potentially have a window sign on it. <br />Mr. Otto replied that it potentially did. He explained that the Ordinance simply limits <br />the actual size of a window sign for each window at no more than 25 percent and <br />that there is a maximum square footage of signage in totality for the business <br />property. <br />Commissioner Narum noted that as shown on the exhibits, every single window on <br />the first floor could have a sign on it. <br />Mr. Otto clarified that there were also some signs that were not included in the <br />drawings. He stated that in its first submittal, Comerica included four window signs <br />as part of its proposal, but later decided it did not want to do window signs other than <br />a small sign on the door. <br />Commissioner Fox stated that she did not recall the original Kolln Hardware building <br />having a building identification sign on the second floor but possibly on the awning. <br />She inquired if the sign on the second floor was in keeping with the architecture of <br />the building. <br />Mr. Otto replied that he did not believe the Kolln Hardware building had a building <br />identification sign but that there was a “Kolln Hardware” business sign located <br />mid-level on the building on the Main Street elevation. He added that staff also does <br />not believe placing the sign on the second floor would detract from the design or <br />architecture of the building. <br />Mr. Otto then discussed the actual design, lettering, and placement of the Comerica <br />Bank signs. He noted that the applicants are also switching the locations of the ATM <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 25, 2009 Page 11 of 27 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.