PC 081308 - Laserfiche WebLink

d. PAP-124 (PSDR-328378), Craig Sjoberg Appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s approval of an application for sign design review for building and monument signage at 5000 Pleasanton Avenue. Zoning for the property is PUD-O (Planned Unit Development – Office) District. Ms. Amos presented the staff report and described the background, scope, key components, and lay out of the project. Chair Blank noted that the minor modification request was required to have one signage on the ground floor, which was denied by Council. He inquired why the Council would approve it now. Commissioner O’Connor noted that one sign would conform to the Downtown Design Guidelines and inquired why the Council would reject it. Ms. Decker explained that the Zoning Administrator considered two points. She noted that there is a compositional difference in terms of time from the previous request and the present request. She indicated that staff has examples of other buildings with signage for the second floor tenant but that it has been the practice to allow second-floor signage only for the second-floor tenant. She stated that the applicant had indicated that both signs would each reflect approximately 50 percent use of the second floor. She added that there are examples of signage in second stories showing the use of the buildings and that, therefore, in terms of what is allowed, staff felt a compromise would be supportable and allow one sign on the first floor and one sign on the second floor. Commissioner O’Connor confirmed that page 23 of the Downtown Design Guidelines allows second-floor signs as long as they are appropriate and an integral part of the building’s architecture and does not limit it to one or two signs. He added that from the examples presented by staff, there are more than one sign on the upper level but most had a lot of distance between signs. Ms. Amos agreed that in the Bernal Corporate Park and Hacienda Business Park, there is more distance between signs on the second floor and staff considers these more appropriate. Commissioner Olson inquired if the monument sign would remain. Ms. Amos said it would. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED . Craig Sjoberg, applicant and appellant, distributed pictures of the building to the Planning Commission. He discussed his work as a manager and his request to update his signage. He stated that most businesses have upscale signage and that he believes their proposal is appropriate and within the guidelines for second-floor signage. He described their proposed signage as matching colors with necessary accents. He noted that second-floor signage provided curb appeal and that there is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 13, 2008 Page 22 of 26