Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Exception topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DRC continues review of unpermitted wall sign at 2269 LaBarre Meadows Road after application inconsistencies
Summary
The DRC continued consideration of a sign-exception permit for a wall sign installed at 2269 LaBarre Meadows Road, citing inconsistent application dimensions and the option for the applicant to pursue a monument sign or modify signage to avoid needing an exception.
The Development Review Committee on Jan. 28 continued consideration of a sign-exception permit for a wall-mounted sign installed on a MEC Builds, Inc. warehouse at 2269 LaBarre Meadows Road, after staff found inconsistencies in the sign application and the committee failed to second an approval motion.
City planner Amy Wolfson told the committee the item was before the DRC because the wall sign was not included in the original building permit and the sign area exceeded the municipal code maximum for primary frontages. The staff report contains inconsistent figures: early agenda language described the sign as 28 square feet, the building-permit application listed dimensions of 6 by 8 feet (48 square feet), but an on-site inspection showed a larger sign that staff identified as 16 by 8 feet. Staff said the 6-by-8 listing on the application appeared to be a typo and flagged the matter as a sign-exception issue.
Matthew, identified in the record as the applicant for MEC Builds, said the warehouse is set back from the road and the sign "breaks up the mass of the building," adding the site has a showroom and some customer visits. Committee members discussed alternatives, including a monument sign or splitting the allowed square footage between a monument and wall sign. One committee member observed that the sign was installed before the permit application had been fully processed and described the request as seeking forgiveness.
A committee member moved to recommend approval and tied the motion to the CEQA categorical exemption listed in the staff report, but the motion died for lack of a second. Committee members then discussed options, including whether the sign could qualify under the municipal code's 100-square-foot threshold so the exception would not be necessary. The committee ultimately voted to continue the item to the Feb. 25 DRC meeting to give staff and the applicant time to resolve the size discrepancy and explore alternatives.
The continuation means the applicant will work with city staff to determine the correct sign area, whether a monument sign or other configuration would avoid an exception, or whether a new exception application is necessary. The continued hearing is scheduled for Feb. 25.
