Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />FEBRUARY 25, 2009 <br />that would be allowed for this building. In recalculating signage based on <br />the north elevation of the building, 535 square feet of total signage would <br />be permitted. The applicant is requesting 652 square feet of signage, 192 <br />square feet for the pylon and 460 square feet of building signage. Signage <br />would be placed on two building walls. Given that this is technically not a <br />corner lot, only the not•th elevation is counted in the signage calculation. <br />The Planner felt, however, that the amount of signage being proposed is <br />reasonable for this property. He noted that under the PUD zoning, the <br />City can make an accommodation allowing the 652 square feet of signage. <br />The Planner further noted that the applicant is requesting that The pylon be <br />allowed to remain at its current height of 45 feet. The Code would restrict <br />this pylon height to 25 to 30 feet. The Planner stated that the existing <br />pylon is not out of character given the property location adjacent to the <br />freeway. The Planner felt allowing the 45 foot height was not <br />unreasonable at this time. Should future changes to the property be <br />proposed, the Planner recommended that the City review the sign height at <br />that time. The Planner noted that the Planning Commission has <br />recommended approval of the Comprehensive Sign Plan as proposed. <br />Bob Wagner, property owner, indicated that while they are requesting the <br />pylon height remain at 45 feet, they will be repainting the sign posts and <br />improving the appearance of the pylon. The Planner noted that the <br />Planning Commission recommended the addition of landscaping or other <br />sign treatments to dress up the base of the sign. The Commission did not <br />outline specific details of this recommendation. <br />Rick Ferraro, Spectrum Sign Systems, reported that they are proposing <br />both illuminated and non-illuminated wall signage for the building. They <br />are also proposing that sign letters be mounted on raceways. Montour <br />noted that the City did not allow raceway signage at the Market Place <br />Shopping Center. He noted that raceway signage is discouraged in the <br />City's Architectural Guidelines. <br />Ferraro noted the damage caused to a building by individually mounted <br />signage letters. He pointed out that a raceway sign requires far less <br />mounting holes to be made in the building. Ferraro noted that each time a <br />tenant changes in the building, the signage will change. Raceway signage <br />will protect the integrity of the building when sign change-outs are <br />necessary. <br />McGraw asked for an explanation on which signs would be lit and which <br />would not. Ferraro noted that Exhibit B shows the illuminated signage <br />and Exhibit C shows non-illuminated. Bob Wagner indicated that whether <br />the wall signage is lit or not will be at the preference of the tenant. He <br />noted that illuminated signage is very expensive. Wagner also indicated <br />