PL AGENDA 12201988 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Staff Report - Mr. Childs 2 The City Manager reported that he had not been at the November 15th 04 hearing on the variance for a freestanding sign to identify new tenants in what was formerly the Medtronics building, but he had concluded from 5 reading the minutes of the hearing that the Commissioners had requested 6 the building management and sign company representatives who had 7 requested the signage to take another look at the size and the height 8 to see if a sign smaller than 118 square feet would also work for them. 9 He indicated that was what they had done and the new plans in.the agenda 10 packet represented a sign with a 20% reduction in sign surface area and it a total height of 8 feet, 6 inches as compared to the almost 12 foot 12 high sign originally proposed. The above information had been reported 13 in Mr. Childs' December 14th memorandum to the Commissioners in which 14 he had also indicated he thought the trade off of the sign proposed that 15 evening for the wall signs which the Sign Code allowed on that building 16 to be a good one. He had also emphasized the importance of including 17 that fact in any motion of approval to avoid confusion in the future 18 because those minutes "will be our corporate memory long after those of 19 us present this evening are no longer involved in City planning. " Mr. 20 Childs also drew attention to the site map in their agenda packet which 21 illustrated the sign's relationship to the two plywood signs currently 22 on the site. He pointed out that the new sign would be sited almost 80 23 feet from the shoulder and 85 feet from the curb on Highway 88. The 24 City Manager reported conversations with Mr. Youngquist had indicated 25 the building manager felt any sign smaller than the one they were now 26 proposing would not be feasible because it would lose its impact from 27 the highway. When Commissioner Hansen asked Mr. Childs what he meant when he called Z9 the existing signage illegal, the City Manager explained that one of the 30 "for lease" signs the building managers had erected had been legal, but 31 the identification sign was non-conforming to the sign code and had been 32 the impetus for the variance process. 33 Proponents - Charles Youngquist of R. L. Johnson Investment and Barbara 34 Pitcher of Nordquist Sign Company 35 Mr. Youngquist indicated he perceived the revisions they had made in the 36 signage would achieve not only their own needs for recognition from the 37 highway but would also address the concerns the Commissioners had 38 expressed during the first hearing. He pointed to the proposed sign's 39 location on the site plans in relation to the intersection of Highway 40 88 and Old Highway 8, saying there would have to be considerable 41 stacking before the sign could interfere with the visibility of drivers 42 on Highway 88. 43 Commissioner Brownell told him it was hard to see the plywood signs if 44 a driver is southbound on Highway 88 because of the rows of cedar trees 45 which screen the east side of the building or the row of Russian Olive 46 trees along the parking lot. The building manager indicated the sign 47 siting had been based on the visual sighting the sign company • 2