CC Min 2000-12-18 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

The motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote by those present. 8. MATTERS OF COUNCIL INTEREST — None 9. PUBLIC HEARING — A. PUBLIC HEARING on Two Decisions made by Architectural Review Committee - 650 El Camino Real and 1034 El Camino Real; (603) Principal Planner Jany explained the sign ordinance has been implemented for a year now and staff and the Architectural Review Committee has processed numerouus sign permits. The applicant can appeal a decision to the Council and in the following cases, the main argument is that the applicant wants to keep the signs permanently and does not want the old signs to be phased out over the next 4 to 7 years as prescribed by the sign ordinance. Project Planner Kelly explained the code enforcement process began with the El Camino Real corridor because it was the area with the largest concentration of illegal and nonconforming signage in the city. Staff has completed a survey of El Camino Real and has notified 25% of the nearly 500 businesses that have sign code violations. Mr. Kelly explained the decisions on both appeals would directly affect the review of sign exceptions made in these categories and proceeded to explain the process. 8:40 p.m. — Council Member Hartnett arrived at the dais Mayor Ruskin opened the public hearing on both items. Ron Marblestone representing the owner of 650 El Camino Real, Spencer Allen, stated he was saddened by the tree pruning that had occurred. He stated for the record that Spencer Allen was not responsible for the tree trimming. He further stated he was present to seek a variance to allow keeping the one free standing sign and agreed with staff that the two roof signs should probably go according to the amortization schedule. He stated his client's concern is with the ability for people driving to the site to see the businesses from north and south of El Camino Real. The main basis of appeal is from the sign ordinance itself regulating height and that the sign should be allowed based on Section 3.79c, subsection 4(a). Mr. Marblestone questioned the method of measuring the sign. He stated the street trees present special circumstances and safety issues and that the granting of a variance is not special preference because it is a mid -block location presenting different problems. He stated the existing sign fits specifically into the sign ordinance. He further requested that whether the appeal is denied or not, that the amortization schedule period begin as of December 18, 2000. Secondly, some of the tenants on the sign have changed and if the roof signs are removed, the sign will need to be changed. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 18, 2000 MINUTES PAGE 7 MINUTES Book No.58 Page NO. 291