Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 22, 2009 <br />which can be four square feet in size. However, the Council can approve <br />additional directional signs at its discretion. The Planner noted that with <br />regard to this directional signage the Planning Commission recommended <br />removal of the east-facing drive-thru canopy sign. Blesener noted that <br />most of the directional signage proposed relates to the drive-thru <br />pharmacy. <br />Doug Merit, Icon Solutions representing CVS Pharmacy, indicated that <br />they were agreeable with the recommendations of the Planning <br />commission. Blesener asked the amount of decrease in the signage area. <br />Merit reported that the original Variance request was to exceed the <br />signage area maximum by 68 square feet. The changes made in lettering <br />height have reduced the signage area by 88 square feet, now below the <br />City's maximum for the property. <br />Keis noted the City Planner's and the Planning Commission's <br />recommendation relative to the Valvoline sign. Merit reported that they <br />have no final agreement with Valvoline about changing their sign, noting <br />that Valvoline is concerned about compromising their corporate branding. <br />Merit asked that they be able to work on this issue separate of the CVS <br />signage request. <br />Keis asked about the requirements relative to electronic signs. The City <br />Planner indicated that the elechonic sign will require a separate license. <br />Merit reported that they have the City's dynamic sign regulations and will <br />have no problems complying. <br />Montour reported that he had some concerns relative to treating these two <br />separate properties as one for the purpose of signage. He noted that the <br />City has struggled with property owners wanting to have off-site signage. <br />He noted that the City Planner has explained to him that because there is a <br />PUD governing these two parcels, the signage is treated as if this were one <br />site. Blesener stated that it may be more reasonable to handle these two <br />sites as one for signage purposes. Montour noted that it would be unlikely <br />that there would be less signage if the properties were dealt with <br />individually. <br />There was no one present from the general public wishing to comment on <br />this matter. <br />Upon motion by Montour, seconded by Boss, the public hearing was <br />closed. <br />Mr. Montour introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOL UTION NO.2009-4-87 -DENYING THE VARIANCES FROM <br />THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR FREESTANDING SIGNS AND <br />