PC 050813 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Posson stated that since there have been two exceptions made to this Sign Program and in light of the fact that it was adopted in 2004, he thinks that it may be time to update the Sign Program because we have made two exceptions. He noted that technology has changed, and a number of different approaches to logos have changed. He added that there may be a mechanism to get consistency within the development rather than see exceptions come before the Commission. Chair Blank stated that there would absolutely be no problem if a development wants to come forward and propose a change to the Sign Program; however, the exceptions that have been made since 2004 in this area have only been size and location, and there has not been an exception on internal lighting. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he personally does not have a problem with the brightness of the diffused black/white that was demonstrated, as opposed to the brighter one, but he agrees that there is a Sign Program and there must be consistency. He added that he would not have a problem with updating the Sign Program as well, but with what the Sign Program is today, he thinks that the signs should stay with halo illumination. Commissioner Posson requested staff, for his edification, the reasons why they objected to each of these exceptions requested: the illumination, the size, and the stacking. Ms. Bonn replied that it generally is to encourage consistency between the signs in the office complex. She explained that staff is willing to be flexible in terms of the size height, the logo height to be 44 inches where the Sign Program limits it to 30 inches, the letter depth, which is more contingent on the illumination type. She noted that the halo illumination versus the internal illumination and the location were the top two issues. She added that the staff report includes a comprehensive list on how this sign deviates from the Sign Program. Chair Blank noted that there are two choices presented to the Commission: either uphold the appeal or deny the appeal. He inquired if it is possible to deny the appeal in such a way that would indicate the Commission would support halo lighting at staff's discretion so there is some flexibility, as opposed to just denying the appeal and then have to start the whole thing over again. Ms. Stern stated that what she is hearing from the Commission is that it would support the exceptions other than the direct illumination. Chair Blank confirmed that was correct. Mr. Dolan stated that it can be worded either way: a denial with an amendment or an approval with an amendment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 8, 2013 Page 19 of 25