Laserfiche WebLink
<br />and it is proposed to place the signs within drainage and utility easements; this will necessitate <br />having a survey completed before the project can proceed to the City Council. He added staff is <br />also recommending that the sign on Highway lObe pushed farther back or reduced in size. He <br />stated the goal of the applicants is to increase their visibility during the road construction project <br />but it cannot be done at the risk of public safety. He stated there will be an unofficial vision <br />triangle and it is important to remain keen to public safety on this road. He added the Economic <br />Development Authority has recommended partial financing and the City will not be waiving any <br />permit fee requirements. <br /> <br />Citizen Input <br /> <br />Commissioner VanScoy asked if moving the sign back will eliminate any public safety concerns. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill replied it will make it much easier and stated staff will work with the <br />applicant to either reduce the square footage of the sign, push it back, or a combination of the <br />two to reach a mutually beneficial decision. He stated the goal is to gather the attention of drivers <br />traveling westbound. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cleveland asked what is currently blocking the view for the driver. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill replied it is not so much the pole but the 16 square foot sign face. He <br />stated the height from the ground is three feet. <br /> <br />Colllrilissioner VanScoy asked what staff feels the appropriate size should be. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill stated this will depend on how far the applicant is willing to push the <br />sign back. He stated if the sign stays in its current location, it may be appropriate to have a sign <br />that is half the size which would result in the sign being closer to the City's directional sign <br />definition; however, with all that is happening at this location, staff would be comfortable with a <br />sign that is eight square feet in size at this location and illuminated. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cleveland asked if it would be better to have the sign on the west side of the <br />driveway thus eliminating any distraction for drivers. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill agreed this was a good recommendation. <br /> <br />Dan Hebert of the Gaughan Company stated he has appreciated the efforts of City staff in <br />working with them on their request. He stated they are trying to accomplish more visualization <br />here due to the road construction and felt .by reducing the size of the sign, drivers will not have <br />time to react once they see the sign. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill stated there is still time to negotiate with the applicant regarding the <br />size of the signs and indicated the policy question for the Planning Commission is whether it is <br />okay with the overage of the sign. He stated negotiations regarding placement of the signs will <br />need to occur with the utilities in the area once the survey work is complete. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/October 2, 2008 <br />Page 9 of 15 <br />