CCP 09-22-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"I'll""i; l""" """W" Gundlach replied that the Family Service Center is not asking for anything more than what is already allowed on commercially zoned properties. Currently, commercial properties would only have to pull a building permit to gain an electronic sign and would not have to come before the Commission or Council. Brad Martens, Recreation Supervisor - FSC, added that the only place an electronic sign could be placed is on the eastern end of the building by the 35W on ramp or at Old Highway 8 NW and 10th Street NW. Gundlach added that the 2005 approval includes a dynamic sign. Zisla and Schiferl suggested removing the electronic sign, so that it must come before the Commission when funding is received. Howard asked staff if it should be decided to add another City building would it fall under this sign plan. Gundlach replied that if another building would be added to this plan, such as the Public Works building, it would have to meet one of three criteria: renewal area, shopping center or scenic area. The location would then have to come before the Commission and Council to be approved to join the sign plan and the specific signage needs would have to be identified. Howard stated that he would like a consistent appearance to all City signs, so they can be clearly identified as part of City property. Council Member Doffing asked staff if the gateway signs fall under this amendment, since they are in need of improvement. Gundlach replied that the gateway signs are not included in any comprehensive sign plan. Danger asked staff what process was used in the designing the signs and would there be an opportunity to have artist submit new designs. Gundlach replied that she is not aware of how the current city sign designs were chosen, but the Council could decide to redesign the signs if desired. Gundlach continued that this would be costly as there are numerous city signs that potentially would have to be replaced. Baker asked staff why the Family Service Center is allowed to have the large temporary sign, which is not professional in appearance. Gundlach replied that she has talked with the Family Service Center staff about improving the look of the temporary sign frame, but currently the issue is cost. Baker asked if there are controls over appearance of the banners that will be placed in the holder. Gundlach replied that there are controls within the amendment that will require a banner that will not deteriorate when exposed to the elements. Baker stated he believes that the people who are advertising in that frame should not be required to obtain a temporary sign permit. Danger added that if the only way to use the temporary sign is by obtaining approval through the Family Service Center staff, that should be enough control and a permit should not be needed. Howard inquired to what other potential signs could be created through this amendment. Gundlach replied that the only other signs available is the one ground sign with reader board potential and wall signs, all located that the Family Service Center, which would be required to have a uniform font. Schiferl inquired if there is a way to have the electronic sign come before the Commission as a special use permit. Gundlach replied that it could be added a condition. Motion by Baker, second by Zisla to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 ayes, 0 nays. MOTION APPROVED. Motion by Schiferl, second by Zisla to RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, ESTABLISHING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIVIC CAMPUS COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: