Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> MINUTES <br /> <br /> CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br /> NOVEMBER 9, 2009 <br /> with the City's temporary sign ordinance. The Planning Commission <br /> recommended some modifications to this stance, and the Planner again <br /> reviewed those reconunendations. In recommending that seasonal outdoor <br /> sales events be limited to 20 weekends with a maximum of 65 days, they <br /> also indicated that this criteria would apply to temporary signage as well. <br /> The applicant has indicated agreement with this recommendation. <br /> The Planner noted that the applicant is requesting 200 square feet of <br /> temporary signage versus the 36 square feet allowed by Code. It is the <br /> applicant's position that the 36 square feet would be illegible from the <br /> freeway given the size of the building fagade. Given the reduction in the <br /> number of days that temporary signage would be allowed, the Planning <br /> Commission was agreeable to the 200 square foot size. 'fhe Planner noted <br /> that the applicant has indicated that temporary signage would be displayed <br /> on the north side of the building until tenant space is filled. At that time it <br /> would be moved to the east face of the building. Temporary signage <br /> would be displayed from Friday morning until Sunday evening, and would <br /> coincide with seasonal outdoor display events. <br /> With regard to search lights, the Planner noted that the Code allows for 4 <br /> temporary sign permits up to 14 days in duration. During those permits <br /> search lights are allowed fora 5 days each, or a total of 20 days. The <br /> applicant is requesting 20 days of search light use with no specific <br /> allocation requirement. The Planner reported that the Planning <br /> Commission is recommending 20 days of search light use distributed over <br /> 10 weekends (2-day periods), to be operational only during business <br /> hours. <br /> With regard to recommendation # l OB., the Planner noted that the Planning <br /> Commission was agreeable to the existing pylon remaining at its same <br /> location, height, and size, allowing the sign cabinet to be changed out to <br /> the Dock 86 concept. The same is true of the existing directional signs <br /> provided they remain directional signs only. The Planner also noted that <br /> #1 OD. should be amended to refer to wall and pylon signage, aid he noted <br /> that both permanent and temporary signage would meet the 15% building <br /> silhouette maximum. <br /> The Planner reviewed recommendations #1 I and #12, indicating that the <br /> Commission was in agreement, but noting that Hom has indicated they <br /> have no plans to alter the footprintbf the building. <br /> Ralph Kloiber, Real Estate Director for Hom, reported to the Council on <br /> the fact that their 2007 proposal did not move forward given economic <br /> conditions. As a result of improvements to the economy, Hom is now <br /> prepared to move forward with the Dock 86 concept. Kloiber explained <br /> that concept to the Council, pointing out that the product would be new, <br /> 4 <br /> <br />