CC PACKET 07272004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

41 MEMORANDUM DATE: 07/12/04 MEETING DATE: 07/20/04 TO: Chair Stromgren & Planning Commission Members FROM: Susan M.H. Hall, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: City Electronic Monument Sign Requested Action: On July 20, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing for the actions associated to implement the City's electronic monument sign. This includes two sign variances and a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their July 27 meeting. Background: On June 15, the Planning Commission held a concept review of the City's electronic sign. The sign is proposed to be located on the hill in front of the tennis courts, nearby the intersection of 33`d Avenue and Silver Lake Road (see map attached). The sign will be two-sided, in a closed off "V" configuration (see attached drawing). City staff has been working with LeRoy Sign .Company on sign specifications. Two variances will be necessary to implement the signage: (1) for copy surface area; and (2) a height variance of 2 feet for a proposed height of 10 feet. A conditional use permit is also required. It is recommended the City go with a 10' h X 12' w sign, which includes a two-foot brick base. The sign's message center measures 4' h X 12' w, while the top half of the sign is the City logo, measuring 4' h X 12' w. Per side, the sign's copy surface area measures 96 square feet. A double-sided side is recommended, which would make a total copy surface area of 192 square feet. Per the sign ordinance, a maximum of 150 square feet is allowed for total copy surface area in the Recreational Open Space (ROS) zoning district, where the sign is proposed to be located. Therefore, a variance of 42 square feet would be necessary. The City's sign ordinance requires ground signs to be a maximum height of 8 feet. The proposed sign is 10 feet with the brick base. Therefore, a height variance of 2 feet is necessary for the proposed sign. Under the ROS zoning district, there is no requirement mentioned for ground sign height; however, the City opted to ask for this variance given typical ground sign height. As far as justification for the variances, one reason the sign got larger was because it had to incorporate the city logo. The city logo is dimensionally difficult to reduce to make the sign copy surface area smaller. The city logo cannot be sized any smaller than shown on the drawings to work. The city logo is required, per City Council goals and objectives, for uniform communications. In addition, the sign needs to be large enough for visibility purposes, so it can be seen from the roadway and is safe. Finally, the City