03-23-11 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 2010 Barraclough felt the dark background on the signs was an improvement, and asked if there would be adequate space for each of the shopping center tenants. The Planner reported that the applicant has indicated that there would. Pechmann indicated that he liked the new signage design. He indicated that should a space in the shopping center be split and additional tenant exposure on the pylon needed, there are panels that could be split to provide that signage without increasing the square footage. Duray asked if the height of the sign would be increased. The City Planner noted that the outside dimensions of the sign are not being increased. Fischer asked if the addition of panels as proposed would create any traffic visibility issues. Barraclough indicated that the additional 84 square feet was a good trade -off for elimination of a pylon on Little Canada Road. Pechmann felt the look of the sign was a lot cleaner with the dark background and more readable. He also acknowledged that having space on the pylon was a help to the tenants. Pechmann asked if any changes are being proposed to the wall signage. The Planner replied that the wall signage will not be changed. The Planner noted the NAPA sign, noting that the corporate identity would be retained on the wall sign, but the owner indicated the pylon sign would be uniform in appearance with the dark background and colored letters as shown on the diagram. Duray asked about signage lighting. The Planner indicated either an internally or externally lit sign would meet the City's Architectural Guidelines. Fischer stated that he would like to know if any other options were considered, noting that the applicant is not present to answer any questions. Hall indicated that he was fine with the sign as proposed, and asked if the application can be moved forward or should be tabled given the applicant is not present. The City Planner noted that the Commission can move the application forward or not at their discretion. If any changes are made from what has been proposed, those would have to corn back to the Commission for review. Pechmann stated that he was comfortable moving the request forward. Barraclough agreed. The Planner indicated that if the Commission supports the PUD Amendment, the basis for their recommendation is that the sign is an aesthetic improvement to what current exists, the external size of the sign is not changing, and the bottom of the sign would have an 8 foot clearance so would not create any traffic visibility issues. 4 17