Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />WHEREAS, at the September 18, 2006 City Design Review Committee <br />("Committee") meeting, the Committee recommended approval of the freeway oriented sign <br />at a height of 75 feet (75') above freeway grade, with a sign face area of one thousand and <br />ninety two (1,092) square feet, and a listing of a maximum of four businesses on the sign <br />panels. The Committee recommended denial of the proposed redesign of the existing pole <br />sign; and <br />WHEREAS, Section 18.50.100 of the City's Zoning Ordinance permits a <br />maximum of three (300) square feet of area per sign face, a maximum height of thirty-five <br />feet (36) above freeway grade, a maximum of three lines of copy and a letter height of <br />twenty four inches (24') for freeway oriented signs; and <br />WHEREAS, City staff reviewed the Application, and have found that the <br />Application is not consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance because of <br />the excessive height and size of the proposed freeway sign and remodel of the pole sign, <br />and recommended denial of the Application; and <br />WHEREAS, on September 26, 2006 the Planning Commission conducted a <br />duly noticed public hearing on the Application at which time all persons wishing to testify in <br />connection with the proposed Application were heard, and the Application was <br />comprehensively reviewed; and <br />WHEREAS, in order to approve the Application, including the request for <br />major variance, the Planning Commission is required to find that the Application is consistent <br />with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and <br />WHEREAS, during the Planning Commission's deliberations at the September <br />26, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission found that the Application <br />is excessive in size and height, is aesthetically obtrusive, and is not consistent with the City's <br />General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and <br />WHEREAS, based on the above referenced findings, the Planning <br />Commission denied the Application; and <br />2 <br />