My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-22-09 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
04-22-09 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/2/2009 1:34:45 PM
Creation date
5/4/2009 1:05:36 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.
/
19
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 />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 22, 2009 <br />FROM THE MAXIMUMALLOWED SIGNSQUARE FOOTAGEAS <br />REQUESTED BY ICON IDENTITY SOL UTIONS REPRESENTING <br />CVS PHARMACY BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF <br />FACT: <br />• THERE IS NO HARDSHIP SHOWN THAT WOULD <br />INTERFERE WITH PUTTING THE PROPERTY TO <br />REASONABLE USE; <br />• SIGN VISIBILITY TO THE SITE IS GENERALLY <br />UNOBSTRUCTED FROMAPPROACHING ROADWAYS; <br />• ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE DOES NOT INCREASE VISIBILITY <br />OF THE SITE; <br />• WALL SIGNAGE CAN BE REARRANGED TO MEET THE <br />REQUIREMENT WITHOUT SACRIFICING MESSAGE SIZE <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Blesener <br />Ayes (4). <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />The City Administrator noted the recommendation relative to the <br />Valvoline sign, and noted that if the City does not require a change in the <br />architectural appearance of the sign at this time, the City will lose some <br />leverage for upgrading the sign structure. The City Planner noted that his <br />recommendation was not intended to require that Valvoline change its <br />corporate branding. The recommendation focused on the sign mounting <br />not the sign graphics. The Adminishator pointed out that the Council is <br />processing a master sign plan that covers both properties. <br />Merit noted that the Valvoline sign is on the piece of property that is not <br />owned by CVS. He suggested that CVS would not have the latitude to <br />require Valvoline to change it sign. Merit felt that the discussion of the <br />Valvoline sign should occur between the City and Valvoline. <br />The Administrator again noted that this is a master sign plan for both <br />properties, and felt that the issue is who will pay for architectural <br />improvements to the Valvoline sign. He indicated that if the City <br />approves the master sign plan with the suggestion that the Valvoline sign <br />structure be upgraded, the City will not be able to hold CVS to follow <br />through with the Valvoline sign. <br />Montour noted that this is his concern with the concept that both <br />properties fall under one master sign plan. Montour noted that there may <br />be future updates made to the signage on the shopping center, and asked <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.