Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 26, 2017 <br />PUBLIC Council Member Fischer excused himself from this discussion. <br />HEARING — <br />COMPREHENSIVE The Associate Planner explained that Abbott has applied for a <br />SIGN PLAN <br />Comprehensive Sign Plan amendment to allow a wall sign up to 191 <br />AMENDMENT <br />square feet on the west elevation of the building. She reported that St. <br />FOR EXTERIOR <br />Jude, now Abbott, went through the PUD process in 2007 which included <br />SIGNAGE; <br />a comprehensive sign plan for construction of a new building as part of <br />APPLICANT: <br />their corporate campus at 1 St. Jude Medical Drive. She stated that in <br />ABBOTT, 1 ST. <br />2007, St. Jude Medical was approved for four signs; three wall signs and <br />JUDE MEDICAL <br />one monument sign, but did not install the third wall sign on the north <br />DRIVE <br />elevation. The Associate Planner explained that with the acquisition of St. <br />Jude by Abbott, the signage is being updated with the new company name <br />and they are requesting a larger sign on the west elevation instead of the <br />sign that was not installed. Staff reviewed the amount allowed and they <br />would still be under the 15% allowance for signage. <br />The Associate Planner stated that the second part of the request is to allow <br />this sign to be attached to the west elevation of the screening wall that <br />surrounds their rooftop equipment rather than on a building wall. Staff <br />reviewed this location and determined that this screening is a permanently <br />fixed, heavy duty screening, and looks like it is architecturally part of the <br />building. The Associate Planner stated that staff believes both requests by <br />Abbott are consistent with the intent of the PUD District and the City's <br />architectural guidelines. <br />Keis opened the public hearing. <br />Mr. Steve Seviola, Abbott, stated that Abbott has a real interest to snake a <br />naive for itself in this area, and signage is an important piece. He stated <br />that the screen panels are not higher than any other elevation of the <br />building. <br />There were no comments from the public. <br />Upon motion by Keis, seconded by McGraw, the public hearing was <br />closed. <br />Montour introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTIONNO. 2017-7-123 —APPROVING THE <br />COMPREHENSIVE SIGNPLANAMENDMENT TO ALLOW A <br />WALL SIGN UP TO 191 SQUARE FEET ON THE WEST <br />ELEVATION, MOUNTED TO THE SCREENING WALL <br />SURROUNDING THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. <br />2 <br />