1988-07-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Minutes - Plan Commission Page 2 July 27, 1988 would be relocated approximately 40 feet east of the existing entrance to the store space. Grandpa's also proposed a freestanding sign on its Olive Boulevard frontage which would consist of the existing frame of the Target sign with approximately 100 square foot replacement faces. Chairman McCauley called on Mr. Goldman to present his report on the application. Mr. Goldman first explained that the retail use of this property was originally permitted as a conditional use under a previous zoning ordinance. One of the conditions of use of the property had always been a specific control on signage for the various establishments within the building. Thus, each change of signage over the years had required an amendment of the original Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Goldman recommended approval of the proposed open letter wall sign which fits within the 120 square foot sign size permitted by the Zoning Code for a business location of this size. This sign includes a silhouetted Grandpa's logo within the total calculated sign area. In his view, the freestanding sign should be considered as a shopping center identification sign to provide locational identity for all businesses in the center. The existing 22 foot sign height does not currently serve the owner's best interest in identifying the center because of the maturing trees which block its visibility. He recommended that the free- standing sign be redesigned as a ground mounted rather than a pole mounted sign and that it be limited to a height of 10 feet and to a gross sign area of 80 square feet. He also recommended that this amendment application be approved in a form which eliminates the need for an amendment with each sign change. Mr. Rudolph responded to the recommendation by stating that his only objection to a ground mounted sign would be adequate protection of the sign from vandalism. The company had planned to install a plastic sign face but might be able to design an aluminum face or a face of some material less subject to destruction or vandalism. One option would be to reduce and ground mount the existing sign frame. Chairman McCauley asked the applicant to respond to questions by Plan Commission members. Mr. Kendall asked if the other tenants in the building would be able to display their name on the road sign. Mr. Rudolph replied that the existing tenants would not have their names displayed on the sign, but in the future, it might be more meaningful to Gramex to have a tenant's name share the sign for identification purposes. Chairman McCauley inquired whether the Commission was, during this hearing, establishing a rule governing signage for any other business in the building such as the new Builder's Plumbing Supply location. There might, he thought, be some need for sign exposure at the Olive frontage for the other businesses. Mr. Goldman replied that existing or proposed signage for other businesses in the building was not presently before the Commission for its decision or recommendation. Recommen- dations for signage for the other businesses had been made to City Council in the past to help ensure the businesses visibility and identification with the center. Mr. McCauley was pleased that Grandpa's occupancy would be achieved with a minimum vacancy time for the premises and supported any sign proposal which would not detract from the landscaping and trees in front of the center. Ms. Kreishman asked why the word "institutional" had been used in the recommendation regarding signage for potential occupants. Mr. Goldman replied that certain types of institutional or organizational uses were permitted within the zoning district in which the subject property is located.