CCMIN062000 - Laserfiche WebLink

extra measure of dominance and presence 24 hours a day~ mostly because they are lit up. They are mainly designed for attracting motorists' attention, with a low profile to the roadway. They clearly state a business prominence to an area. There are five in the area. two have their own momunent signs, two businesses. Big O Tires and Rynick, which are multi-tenant complex businesses. We were not allowed to have our own monument sign at this time. Mr. Cox said that they strongly disagreed with stafl~s statement pertaining to window signage. In the pictures presented. all forms of window signage were noted. Some of the window signs have been in place for years. There is no city sign regulation detailing allowed window signage at this time. The standard percentage of permm~ent window signage as stated in the staff report is about 25% of the window surface. We are asking for 12-V_, %. Essentially the Planning Commission denied any form of window signage with the exception of the two neon signs mentioned by Mr. S~vifi. Mr. Cox said that the neon open sign is rather a sore issue. Staff stated that the city didn't regulate open signs, so we put up two, aeter four months of going without any signs in the window and without using the ones we had, because our signage progxam had not been approved yet. We could present a list of businesses in the area who use two or more open signs. Several of them use four; there is one that uses six. We are still counting at lburteen, and I anx sure there are others out there. Most use the open sig~s to cover two different street frontages or have more than 100 feet of frontage on a building. We have both, themibm we should be allowed probably more than one. Mr. Cox said he would now do a quick review of the existing signage on the building. (He presented some pictures to Councilmembers.) None of these signs wcrc his signs, and his signs were temporary signs. There is basically 92 square feet of signage. There is a restriction within the approval to only allow 10 square t~ct of the 20 square feet of the sigmaage on the building to print matter, so in effect you only really get half the amount of the sign in printed material. So that efl~ctively cuts that signage in half. Now if you take one more step and look at it from a standpoint of the building previously mentioned, it is blocking all these signs. If that is tree, then those signs would be considered non-visible from the property bmmdaries and should be considered exempt signs. This in turn would make that zero for the overall complex. Mr. Cox stated that his business is on two street frontages and staff did indicate that the building has a small amount of frontage on Calilbrnia. One of the concerns is that they are not sure they have been properly allowed the full mount of what they should be allowed, taken into the fact that they have California frontage. He is not sure that was into the equation. Staff did not address that in the report, and it is still a question at this time. He said therefore the maximum amount could be higher. Mr. Cox said that he would like to read one paragraph l~om the appeal hc submitted pertaining to the current makeup of businesses in the complex. The appeal states that our current makeup houses a mix of businesses unsuited to become a center or plaza, nor is the complex architecturally designed as a center or plaza, The Planning Pleasanton city Council 22 06/20/00 Minutes