Laserfiche WebLink
CORRECTED AND APPROVED – APRIL 14, 2005 <br />a primary public building entrance or main area of window display. The east elevation of <br />Building D meets the first but not the second criterion. <br /> <br /> <br />One of the rationales for this regulation is that it becomes an incentive to make the <br />backside of a building more architecturally attractive when site design forces it to back up <br />to a public street. As noted in the Staff Report, there are several recent examples along <br />McCaslin where the windows have been added to the rear side of a building in order to be <br />eligible for McCaslin signage. <br /> <br /> <br />For this property in particular, there are two buildings, whose entrances face either east or <br />west and therefore technically the opposite side is not eligible for signage. From a <br />practical standpoint, given the importance of South Boulder Road traffic to their business <br />success and in order for customers to be able to be able to simply identify the location of <br />the business it seems logical to add the signage on the rear sides of both Building C and <br />D. <br /> <br /> <br />Building C is the Blockbuster Building, which was not originally part of the request, but <br />the Subway tenant space is in the same situation. The signs that were recently installed at <br />Subway were installed without a permit. The sign on the west elevation would need to be <br />removed if it is not authorized by this PUD amendment. <br /> <br /> <br />Staff is recommending approval of the application by Resolution No. 7, Series 2005, with <br />the expansion of the request to Building C and also with the condition that the overall <br />PUD be modified to simply comply with the sign requirements from the CDDSG, in <br />place of the originally approved PUD sign notes. <br /> <br />Commission Questions: <br />Loo had two questions for Johnstone: <br /> <br />1)If passed this evening and subway sign becomes legal, because they did not pull a permit <br />are they double permitted? Johnstone explained that they had applied for a permit but the <br />permit was not approved prior to installation of the sign. An option available to the Chief <br />Building Official is to double fee the permit. The Commission could forward that <br />recommendation to the Chief Building Official. <br /> <br />2)Was there any discussion to add signage to the south elevation of the building? Johnstone <br />rd <br />explained that it would be a 3 sign which would be allowable on the CDDSG and had <br />been considered by Mr. Mak the owner of East West Grill. Based on the PUD the south <br />rd <br />elevation is not an eligible building frontage. The Commission could approve the 3sign. <br /> <br />Sheets asked if these two signs were approved then what precedent is being set for other <br />buildings at this site and for other developments in town. Johnstone stated that the request would <br />apply to buildings C and D within this complex and the tenants within those buildings. In terms <br />of other sites in the city, applicants are encouraged to use window glazing which creates the <br />eligibility requirement for signage. The one site that might want to consider a similar type of <br />adoption would be Colony Square. <br /> <br />Pritchard asked if this type of approval would create the opportunity for businesses that located <br />in a development that has an approved color scheme to begin to use their colorful logo that <br />would not originally be approved through the regular sign program. Johnstone stated that he does <br />not believe it will create any of those issues. <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />