Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memo to Planning Commission <br />May 25, 1999 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />freestanding sites and multi-tenant buildings. This site isa mix of both; it is <br />a multi-tenant building on a freestanding site. <br /> <br />If this site was considered as a multi-tenant building, similar to the stores in <br />the Target building, each business would be allowed only one wall sign. This <br />did not seem practical given the location of the lot. Staff felt a more realistic <br />approach would be to treat each business as freestanding in terms of <br />applying the sign agreement. <br /> <br />Freestanding buildings are allowed one wall sign unless the building abuts 2 <br />or more public streets. In this case the building abuts three streets so they <br />would be allowed a total of three wall signs if the building was occupied by a <br />single tenant. However, since the building has two tenants, each tenant will <br />need its own signange. Each tenant has frontage on two streets. Hollywood <br />Video has frontage on Highway 169 and 191st Avenue and Leeann Chin has <br />frontage on Freeport Street and 191st Avenue. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />It is staffs interpretation that according the existing sign agreement each <br />tenant is allowed two wall signs, one for each street frontage. The applicant <br />is not disputing that interpretation. What they are requesting is the sign <br />agreement be amended to allow additional signage on the awnings. None of <br />the other buildings or businesses in the center have signage on the awnings. <br />The Elk Park Center PUD agreement does not specifically address awning <br />sIgns. <br /> <br />Evaluation of Request <br /> <br />It is difficult to justify allowing one tenant in the center to have awning signs <br />when none of the other businesses have them. The applicant states they need <br />the extra signage because it is part of their standard package. By allowing <br />the awning signage a precedent may be set for other businesses asking the <br />same. This could affect the other businesses in Elk Park Center as well as <br />businesses in other PUDs. <br /> <br />Plannine Commission Meeting <br /> <br />At the May 25,1999 Planning Commission no one spoke at the public <br />hearing. The applicant explained they wanted the awning signage as part of <br />their standard trade dress. The Commission expressed concern regarding the <br />precedent which would be set by allowing the awning signs. The Commission <br />voted 3:2:0 to recommend denial of the request to allow awning signs. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Document2 <br />