My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 050813
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
PC 050813
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:44:38 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 3:38:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/8/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
Chair Blank inquired what the City's position is with respect to the stacked logo, given that <br />the applicant's logo is stacked, if they were to meet all the other requirements. <br />Ms. Bonn replied that the logo, as proposed, is acceptable and that staff is willing to go up <br />to 44 inches in height on the logo. <br />Commissioner Posson requested staff to present a little background on the genesis of the <br />approved Sign Program, inquiring if that is part of the approval for the development or <br />something the development, as a whole, comes up with to ensure consistency within the <br />development. <br />Ms. Bonn replied that procedurally, the Sign Program can be processed with a PUD <br />Development Plan or after the fact. She explained that it is usually established for <br />buildings or a set of buildings that will have more than one tenant to establish some form <br />of uniformity and consistency where there are different tenants occupying multiple tenant <br />spaces. <br />Commissioner Posson inquired what the process is to request a modification to the Sign <br />Program and the subsequent approval of that modification. <br />Ms. Bonn replied that the process would be through a Sign Design Review application, <br />which was submitted for in this instance, which is done at the staff level unless it is <br />appealed, as has happened in this case. <br />Chair Blank requested clarification that the applicant is not asking to modify the Sign <br />Program but is appealing specific exceptions around this sign. <br />Ms. Bonn clarified that was correct. <br />Commissioner Pearce inquired why this particular Sign Program or any other Sign <br />Program requires halo illumination as opposed to internal illumination. <br />Ms. Bonn replied that this standard was established as taller office buildings were <br />established in the City, and because this is an office use, the building is not occupied <br />during off hours or dark hours. She continued that halo illumination is usually encouraged <br />in office buildings as opposed to internally - illuminated channel letters typically seen in <br />commercial buildings. <br />Commissioner Pearce inquired if the thought is that they are too bright at night <br />Ms. Bonn replied that was correct. <br />Commissioner Pearce inquired if one of the signs proposed is on the freeway <br />Ms. Bonn said yes; it would be facing 1 -680. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 8, 2013 Page 15 of 25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.