AgdaPkt 2000-12-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

9-A3 example, must find that the sign demonstrates a consistency in style within the context of the business building and is a visual part of the architecture without being visual clutter. Another possible reason for a sign permit exception is that a sign could be classified as historical and be forwarded to the Historical Resources Advisory Committee. In order to qualify as an historical sign the following findings would have to be made: o The sign was installed prior to 1950 and/or reflects unique historical characteristics of the development and heritage of Redwood City; . ❑ The sign reflects exemplary technology, craftsmanship or design of the time period in which it was built; � The sign is in architectural harmony with buildings on the property; and o The sign is structurally sound and complies with the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. The ARC further determined that none of these three signs should be forwarded to the Historical Resources Advisory Committee to seek a classification as . historical signs (Sec. 3.132). 4. In the event the sign permit exception is denied by the ARC, the applicant can subsequently appeal within seven calendar days of the ARC's decision to the City Council. 5. If Staff is unable to work toward full compliance with an individual business after all remedies and options have been explained, the administrative citation process has been used. Appeal 1: The owner of the Whitfield Building at 650 EI Camino Real, was notified in July, 2000, that his building had three business signs that were not in compliance with the new sign code. The owner subsequently submitted a sign/architectural permit application requesting an exception to the Sign Ordinance in order not to amortize two prohibited roof signs and one nonconforming pole sign. That application was reviewed by the ARC on September 19, 2000, and the exception was denied since no findings could be made. The applicant received a Notice of Official Action with related findings on September 26, 2000 (see attachment 1), and filed an appeal on October 3, 2000. The Whitfield Building is a small office complex containing eight different businesses including an office for Rhodes Chiropractic. The site signage consists of one 25 foot tall wooden pole sign with copy identifying six of the businesses in the building and two roof- mounted signs, identifying two separate businesses (Rhodes Chiropractic and a clinical lab). It should also be noted that as of November 13, 2000, it was observed that an unauthorized change of copy was made on one of the prohibited roof signs at 650 EI Camino Real, a violation of Sign Ordinance Section 3.62. Appeal 2: The business owner of Rhodes Chiropractic was notified on August 17, 2000, that the business signage at 1034 EI Camino Real was in violation of the new Sign Ordinance and _ _ .._. _ _ _ .__._.. _ .�.._.