My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 10/12/88
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
PC 10/12/88
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 11:22:37 AM
Creation date
4/13/2007 2:33:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/12/1988
DOCUMENT NAME
PC101288
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 Hovingh asked Mr. Swift what the next step would <br />be. Mr. Swift said the staff would now create a draft ordinance <br />for the Commission's review. <br />RZ_88_7~_City_of_PleaSanton <br />Application of the City of Pleasanton to amend the Municipal <br />Code relating to the provisions for signs in the Downtown <br />Revitalization District. <br />Mr. Swift presented the staff report recommending approval of <br />the proposed amendments as shown in the attached exhibit. He <br />noted that staff has complied an album of the various signs that <br />are downtown. He asked for the Commission's input and asked <br />that the members of the committee, Commissioners Hovingh and <br />Mahern lead the discussion. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />No one appeared. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Commissioner Mahern stated that she and Commissioner Hovingh had <br />attended a meeting with the Downtown Association to discuss <br />signage in the downtown area. The goal is to retain the quaint <br />atmosphere of the downtown while at the same time afford each <br />merchant maximum advertising. She said that one big issue was <br />to have appropriate signage for second-story businessmen. She <br />felt that the existing ordinance covered that issue; however, <br />tenants of second-story businesses did not think it was <br />adequate. <br />Chairman Michelotti asked Mr. Swift to address the second story <br />ordinance and what is allowed. He did so, explaining that what <br />is used is a combination of an ordinance and guidelines. What <br />the ordinance does not address is then covered in the <br />guidelines. He felt that greater clarification was needed of <br />proper signage for second-story tenants. <br />Chairman Michelotti noted that she spoke with Mike Cooper of the <br />Chamber of Commerce who had requested that this case be <br />continued far 3O days so that more input from the merchants <br />might be obtained. She felt clarification of eaves versus <br />overhangs were necessary. <br />Commissioner Mahern noted that mast second-story tenants are <br />offices rather than retail merchants and do not need as much <br />signage. <br />Mr. Swift suggested the Commission might look through the photo <br />a16um complied by staff of signs in the downtown area and note <br />what they like. <br />Chairman Michelotti stated there is a need to address the number <br />of signs in a second-story office. <br />Rage 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.