PC 03/23/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Swift presented the application of Case AP-94-01 recommending denial of the application to install an internally-illuminated cabinet sign on the rear of a building located at 3732 Stanley Boulevard. Mr. Swift stated the building's orientation is not parallel to the street, and the approved sign is not visible to eastbound traffic. Staff does not feel the design of the proposed sign meets the Municipal Code's criteria for rear building signage. Staff has suggested the use of the building address on the rear of the building or the applicant pursue a freestanding monument sign. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Tom McQueen, 3732 Stanley Blvd, represented the application. He described the orientation of the building to Stanley Blvd. and that eastbound traffic cannot see the sign for his new business. Mr. McQueen presented to the Commission a color photo of his building property, as well as photos showing the building's new color scheme. Mr. McQueen stated a sign could be accommodated between the decorative wood architecture on the rear of the building. Mr. McQueen also advised the Commission of the problem of not having a deceleration/turn lane into the Center's driveway. Mr. Higdon advised that he has looked at the situation and asked Mr. McQueen to discuss the situation with City traffic engineers. Commissioner Hovingh inquired if the applicant had given any consideration to a monument sign. Mr. McQueen stated a monument sign could cost approximately $5,000 whereas an illuminated mounted sign would be $1,000 or less. Further, the applicant questioned where the monument sign would be installed in view of widening Stanley Blvd. As for Ray's Electrical and the applicant's business sharing a monument sign, Mr. McQueen feels the owner of Ray's Electrical does not perceive that he needs a monument sign. Commissioner Michelotti asked about the size of the proposed sign. Mr. McQueen stated it would fit between the decorative wood architecture, making it approximately 3 feet high by 7 feet long. Mr. Swift advised the Commission they could approve the sign, condition a new size without it having to come back before the Planning Department. In response to Commissioner Michelotti, the applicant stated he did not have a picture of the proposed sign. Responding to Commissioner Wright's question, Mr. McQueen stated he would like the sign to be internally illuminated. He feels the rear sign will be more important to his business than his front sign due to its higher visibility. In response to Commissioner Finch's question, Mr. McQueen does not want to give up his front sign in lieu of the rear sign. In response to Commissioner Wright's comments regarding allowing a non-illuminated, painted sign for the rear of the building, Mr. Swift stated the City has no issue concerning the illumination; the City's concern is whether the building lends itself to having signage on Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 March 23, 1994 . -