06-20-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved The original Comprehensive Sign Plan for Main Street Village deliberately left out the sign requirement of Building E, which is the retail building. This was to allow the developer to respond to future development as the building became occupied. Building E is designed for retail tenants relying on visibility to draw customers in. Up until the last few months, all the bays within the southwesterly wing of Building E remained vacant. Currently, Jimmy John’s sandwiches and Limu Coffee have since occupied two of those bays. Since their openings, there has been a desire to make their th businesses more visible from north and south bound traffic on 5 Avenue NW. This accounts for the most notable amendment to the Comprehensive Sign Plan. The applicant wishes to allow directory style signs on the SE Diagonal Corner and the North Elevation. The SE Diagonal would provide for two signs, each measuring no larger than 28 s.f. and the North Elevation would allow for one sign no greater than 28 s.f. but could identify one for more tenants. Two other minor amendments are proposed. The first deals with Building C and the signs allowed over windows. The language currently reads that tenants were allowed to have a sign over their window. However, with much of the building this just wasn’t possible so signs have appeared over windows that are not necessarily belonging to the tenant that the sign represents. The amendment proposed documents what currently exists with Building C. The last amendment deals with temporary signs in windows of tenant space within Building E. The applicant has stated the intent from the January 2005 amendment was to include this language so that temporary sign permits could be avoided. This amendment allows tenants to place temporary signs in their windows without a temporary sign permit. Staff would add that all other businesses within the City operating under the regular Sign Ordinance are not required to receive temporary sign permits for window signs. This would be extremely hard to regulate. Tenants of Building E would still be required to obtain a temporary sign permit for a temporary sign that was displayed on the exterior of the building. Mann asked if they have already set the standards for a temporary sign. Gundlach replied that they have, but now the issue is do they need a temporary sign permit, pay the fee and be limited to two times a year or can they just put up the signs under the standards. The proposal is to let them do it under those standards, since commercial properties do not have to pull a permit. Baker inquired if there will ever only be two tenants on the south east diagonal directional signs. Gundlach replied that is correct, and when the corner spot is filled, then they would be able to do a sign in the middle of the building. Mann inquired if it’s because the corner spot doesn’t need as much exposure, since it’s on the busy corner, but it’s the stores that are tucked into the development that need the additional signs. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2006\06-20-2006.docPage 9 of 15