PC 032509 - Laserfiche WebLink

Regarding the gooseneck lights, Commissioner Fox requested that there be no replication of the situation at the gas station on Bernal Avenue where signs could be seen from ten miles away because the light bulb was actually below the gooseneck. She indicated that she would like to limit temporary windows signage and that while she did not mind snowmen and holiday signage, she felt marketing CD’s was not appropriate. She added that she would like the Master Sign Program to include a provision that signage for other tenants come before the Planning Commission for review and approval. Commissioner Narum supported the Comerica logo and stated that she would like to restrict the Comerica signage to a maximum of three windows signs plus the doors. She agreed with not allowing temporary signs but was amenable to a three-month grand opening sign because the City wants them to be successful. She would not support removing the “Kolln Building” identification sign from the front or on the side as she believed this was important for the heritage of the town and thinks it is appropriate to have it on the second floor. She stated that she did not agree with Commissioner Blank that the Comerica sign on the side should be reduced as people should be able to see it as they drive by. She indicated that she would rather have this than a lot of signage on the windows. She also supported to limit the size of the signs to 9 feet, 3 inches. Commissioner Narum stated that she supported the signs along the side on Division Street because they might be tough spaces to rent and keep occupied. She added that she did not believe the Commission should see every sign but supported Commission notification of Zoning Administrator sign approvals. Chair Pearce inquired if these signs would be approved on the staff level or by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Otto replied that the City’s guidelines for a comprehensive sign program allows for an over-the-counter approval rather than a Zoning Administrator approval. He indicated that if the Commission wished to be informed of these approvals, staff would have to craft a condition that states that the approval could be appealed by the Commission. He noted that this would delay the approval process for these signs. Commissioner Fox clarified that she did not necessarily intend for a hearing to take place but rather that the Commission would have the ability to appeal. Commissioner Narum stated that she would like to see the signs and have the ability to appeal. In response to Chair Pearce’s inquiry if this could be done, Ms. Decker replied that typically, if an appeal period is required, it would need to go through a Sign Design Review process. She noted that this would negate the purpose of a Master Sign Program, which is designed to give a tenant the ability to come in and receive a sign PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 25, 2009 Page 18 of 27