My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-10-05 Planning Comm. Minutes
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
02-10-05 Planning Comm. Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2008 1:06:18 PM
Creation date
6/5/2008 1:04:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMNIISSLON <br />FEBRUARY 10, 2005 <br />for the individual businesses be reversed out, that is white lettering on a <br />dark background to comply with the City's Architectural Guidelines. <br />With regard to the State Farm sign, the Planner recommended that the sign <br />be modified to provide for no lighting of the white background. He noted <br />that the Architectural Guidelines specif tally speak against this type of <br />sign. <br />Mathern asked if cabinet base for the monument sign was acceptable as <br />presented, including the white lettering for the complex came and address. <br />The Planner replied that it was. <br />Mathern indicated acceptance of the recommendation to reverse out the <br />lettering color for the business names on the monument sign. Mathern <br />indicated that she could not speak for the State Kann business owner, but <br />indicated that this was a sign that existed on the Market Place Shopping <br />Center. The State Farm owner is merely moving the signage over. <br />Mathern pointed out that the sign was illuminated when it was on the <br />shopping center. <br />Knudsen noted that one of the goals of the architectural guidelines is to <br />eliminate plastic baclit signage. Knudsen suggested that if the State <br />faun owner has strong feelings about the issue, he should attend the <br />Council meeting. <br />Rheaznne was concerned that other tenants of the townoff ces would want <br />this additional signage on the building. The City Planner noted that if <br />additional signage is requested, a PUD Permit would have to be applied <br />for. Given that the signage requires a PUD Permit, the Planner indicated <br />that if the Convnission is inclined to reconvnend approval, it can also <br />recommend a limit on the number of these types of signs ou the building. <br />Wojcik expressed concern that the City allowed the sign to he backlit <br />when it was on the Market Place Shopping Center, and the <br />recommendation is against lighting this sign when it is moving to a <br />building across the parking lot. The Planner indicated that the sign was <br />grandfathered in when it existed on the Market Place Shopping Center. <br />Now that the sign is being moved, the issue is reopened. <br />Wojcik indicated that he was not opposed to having the sign backlit, <br />pointing out that this is a Little Canada business person that is merely <br />moving a short distance to another building. <br />Weihe felt it was the Commission's task to enforce the current rules and <br />regulations. Knudsen agreed and pointed out that new development is <br />subject to current City policy. <br />-2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.