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
Mr. Otto concurred and stated that if the Commission wants to allow Comerica to <br />have their trapezoidal sign it should strike Condition 2.a. of Exhibit A-2. <br />Ms. Decker stated that the Comerica Bank signs are not in exact conformance to the <br />shapes and sizes of the Master Sign Program. She asked if the Commission <br />wanted to make an exception for Comerica Bank only where future tenants should <br />then comply with the Master Sign Program or if this exception would apply to any <br />future primary tenant who would want to propose signage of any shape or size. <br />Commissioner Blank stated that his intention was is only for Comerica Bank and that <br />if another tenant comes in 20 years from now such as Bank of America or Wells <br />Fargo Bank, he would like their signage to come before the Commission if it does <br />not conform to the Master Sign Program. <br />Commissioner Narum agreed.She inquired if tenants who want logos would need <br />to come before the Commission for a variance, assuming the Commission strikes <br />the logo from the Master Sign Program. <br />Ms. Decker replied that the tenant would apply for Sign Design Review approval <br />rather than a variance, which would be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator with an <br />opportunity for the Commission to appeal. She added that if it was controversial, <br />staff could bring it before the Planning Commission for review and approval. <br />Chair Pearce inquired if the logo included font, color, or size of print. <br />Ms. Decker replied that the limitation would be the actual shape of the sign, which is <br />going to be established; the interior panel background color and font can be different <br />for each tenant. <br />Chair Pearce stated that she would like to amend the motion to tighten up the color. <br />Commissioner Fox suggested keeping the colors in line with the color palette <br />already in use, such as blue, green, gray, black, or brown. <br />Commissioner Blank proposed that a condition be added that the colors be <br />“consistent with the color palette already in use.” <br />Commissioner Narum stated that the City is trying to get businesses located in the <br />building and she would hate to tell a corporation, such as Jamba Juice, that their <br />logo or brand cannot be used. <br />Chair Pearce commented that a historical building should not look like a circus. <br />Commissioner Blank believed businesses would have to put their logo within the <br />oval. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 25, 2009 Page 20 of 27 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.