18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner O'Connor noted that the flagpole on that front corner would be very obvious from a main thoroughfare. Ms. Decker agreed and added that staff has considered flag poles as well as monopole trees and considers that context of the surrounding area. She indicated that the City has taken exception to flagpoles because they look more like big power poles than a flag pole. She noted that the diameter at the base stays consistent all throughout the pole at approximately 18 inches as opposed to a regular flag pole which has an a base of approximately six inches and tapers off to the top. He added that staff has had a couple of incidents with proposals in the City where exceptions have taken place, and staff is very cautious with flagpoles to ensure that the size of the flag that would be flown is not larger than what is depicted on the design. Commissioner O'Connor stated that the flagpole would not be so visible if it were located back into the parking lot areas or between the buildings. Chair Blank stated that the picture shown on page 2 of the staff report are not drawn to scale as the buildings themselves are not of the same size, which makes the proposal appear to have less impact. Ms. Soo noted that the building itself is about 24 feet tall, and the existing tower is about 36 feet tall. Chair Blank noted that there is the existing tower element plus a second tower element on top of it. He inquired if there would be any changes to the base tower elements in terms of diameter, height, and area. Ms. Soo stated that the base tower elements would remain the same. She then showed the cross section of the towers on the screen. Commissioner Narum noted that the tower has an arch design. Ms. Decker stated that this design is on all four sides to provide a little bit more relief. She added that as earlier pointed out, the height of the tower does not change in terms of height; a smaller nine -foot tall cupola was added which would house all of the panels while the equipment is located within the existing tower. She noted that staff believed this was a good compromise to having the tower continue upward in its same dimension and provides some visual relief. Chair Blank inquired if the golden arch logo would be reproduced on all four sides whereas it is currently only on the front side. Ms. Decker replied that the additional signage is not a part of this particular approval and that the logo will not be on all four sides. In response to Commissioner O'Connor's inquiry regarding the use of the original tower, Ms. Soo replied that it was decorative. Commissioner Fox noted that the picture of the existing tower looks bigger than that of the proposed tower and that it appears the picture of the proposed tower was taken a EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 24, 2008 Page 3 of 10