Laserfiche WebLink
<br />gone into the sign’s placement in accordance with 7.3 of the CDDSG. The structure is located in an <br />area already landscaped and the sign will displace some of this landscaping. We accept that additional <br />plantings will be required to both screen the lighting and to meet the requirements of the PUD and <br />CDDSG. <br /> <br />Marceau requested to have tenant identification on the sign faces as both a reasonable interpretation of <br />the original PUD approved and a practical matter of tenant identification. Three of the <br />present/proposed tenants have no main arterial (McCaslin Blvd.) exposure. We submit that it is <br />reasonable and practical to have the individual businesses identified at the entry. This type of <br />identification as a locator better serves people looking for a particular business. <br /> <br />Members of the Public: None. <br /> <br />Staff Summary and Recommendation: Johnstone reported that Staff is recommending approval with <br />four (4) conditions as outlined in the Staff Report. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br /> <br />Lipton asked if the applicant agreed with the four (4) conditions. <br /> <br />Marceau replied that they do agree with the conditions. <br /> <br />Public Hearing Closed Commission Comments: Lipton closed the Public Hearing and asked for <br />Commission Comments. <br /> <br />Pritchard expressed concerns about the entire development specifically about the landscaping and the <br />lack of maintenance. He was also concerned about the impact the new sign would have on visibility as <br />you exit the development. He does not like the sign design and does not support the approval of the <br />application. <br /> <br />Lipton agrees with part of Pritchard’s comments. He would prefer to see a sign that is lower and <br />longer. He stated that the sign should be restricted to those that do not have visible signage. <br /> <br />McDermott does not like the design and the potential of eight (8) business names being displayed. <br /> <br />McAvinew agree with Lipton and would like to have the applicant come back with another design. <br /> <br />Lipton discussed with the applicant the following: 1) additional pictures of the sign, 2) which <br />businesses need and do not need signage, and 3) a re-design of the sign with a lower profile. <br /> <br />McAvinew moved to continue the application to the September 11, 2001 meeting and that the <br />applicant provide the three (3) items discussed with Lipton. Seconded by McDermott. <br /> <br />Roll Call Vote: <br />Bill McDermott, Yes; Chris Pritchard, Yes; Tom McAvinew, Yes; Jeffery Lipton, <br />Yes. (Debra Kalish, Patricia Thompson and Christopher Leh absent) Motion to continue passed 4:0. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br /> <br />