PC 101304 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Kline summarized the staff report and described the history of this application and the site. The Municipal Code does allow for a range of sign types, including window signs, which are technically subject to design review, which allows the City to ensure that they are appropriately and attractively designed. Staff believed that window signs generally have less of a visual impact because of the transparent background versus a wall-mounted sign or a monument sign. Unlike Downtown, there is no percentage limit to window signage in other areas; Downtown has a 25 percent limit. Therefore, the judgment falls on a subjective analysis as to the overall signage on the site, the proposed colors and design, illumination, and other characteristics. Other businesses in the area have installed window signage of varying sizes. Staff did not believe this would result in excessive signage for the site as far as the amount of azea, nor would it exceed other window signage by other businesses in this azea. Staff was pleased that the signage was a uniform color and style for the lettering, which provided a more uniform appearance. Regazding content, Ms. Kline stated that there was no prohibition in the Municipal Code restricting the use of product and service promotion. Staff inferred that the community as a whole does not perceive window signage to be a problem and that very few complaints had been received by staff over her past 15 years. Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of PSDR-208. _ In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Roberts whether there was a time limit on window sign displays, Ms. Kline replied that there was no time limit, but that a 30-day limit would apply to agrand-opening banner hung on the outside of the building. Commissioner Sullivan noted that the City stated that it was strict with permanent signs and more flexible with temporary signs. He inquired what the City's stance was regazding permanent window signs. Ms. Kline noted that the City was stricter with wall-mounted and monument signs because of their permanent nature, whereas window signage may be changed from time to time. Commissioner Fox advised that Dublin estimated the window coverage to be 50 percent and would not approve a similaz window sign on a permanent or temporary basis and that it had an ordinance addressing temporary promotions. After 15 consecutive days, the sign must be removed for at least 30 days, and it may then go back up for an additional 15 days. Commissioner Fox continued that she would not object to this sign if it had a maximum of 25 percent coverage and was more subtle; given the visibility of the window from the road, she believed that it was excessive. She also believed the four-foot high letters were excessive. Commissioner Arkin noted that if the Commissioners had not started getting copies of these Zoning Administration sign approvals, they would not have known the details of this sign and whether they wanted to review it. He would not object as much if the store were in the middle of a business pazk, but he had more of a problem because of its more prominent location on Stanley Boulevard. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 13, 2004 Page 6 of 15