PC 091411 - Laserfiche WebLink

said nothing about the sign and its approval. She added that she was not able to confirm with Mr. Pavan if and how this was complied with. Ms. Moore stated noted that the back side of development is not a solid building and that her neighborhood will also be contending with illumination from the very large window, on top of which would be the nine signs. She reiterated her request to find another way to advertise what is in those buildings. Chair Narum asked Ms. Moore if her concern was for signs on the buildings facing Valley Avenue. Ms. Moore said yes. She added that it is her understanding that window paintings were removed from the plan but the condition that they are subject to the discretion and approval of the tenant is vague. She requested that this be set forth clearly in writing prior to the implementation of the development so that when big sale signs come up on the windows and they need to call Code Enforcement, they can show the document to the Code Enforcement Officer. Ken Rodriques, FAIA, project architect, introduced Jim Reuter, Property Development Centers, and stated that the signage proposed along Valley Avenue is consistent with and does not exceed the provisions of the Sign Ordinance. He added that they are sensitive to tenant window signs and indicated that these have been removed from the application, with any future signs being required to come before the Commission for specific approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chair Narum requested Mr. Pavan to answer Ms. Mr. Pavan noted that page 25 of the project plans, which shows the west elevations of the Shop 5 and Shop 6 buildings, establishes the maximum number of sign locations for the east-facing elevations on Valley Avenue at five signs for Shop 5 and three signs for Shop 6. He indicated that the sign locations are predicated on what the tenant will propose to the landlord, which would ultimately come to staff. With respect to the height of the signs, Mr. Pavan stated that the maximum height is fixed at 30 inches, which is proportionate to the standard 70 percent of the fascia height. He added that he recommended the Commission allow for a six- inch drop below the sign for lower-case feet letters or for script-style letters. Mr. Pavan stated that the aspect of this project is to allow flexibility, within reason, without resulting in obnoxious and obtrusive signs and that staff feels the current program achieves that. He noted that, for example, the halo-lit and gooseneck letters are a warm glow to the street versus the intensity of an internally illuminated sign. He added that the one square foot of tenant space matches the sign standard employed for the Downtown area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 14, 2011 Page 4 of 28