04-22-09 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL APRIL 22, 2009 how this impacts the master sign plan and who owns the master sign plan. Montour felt it may be better to treat each property independently, but understood the desire to have the signage coordinated between the two sites. Montour agreed that the recommendation for upgrades to the Valvoline sign had no impact on branding. Montour also noted that the City Planner made this recommendation in early April, and the conversation should have taken place between CVS and Valvoline. Merit noted that Valvoline is on a separate parcel and has separate ownership from the CV S site. He asked that the Council act on the master sign plan, but hold Valvoline accountable for any upgrades to their sign. Merit suggested that if Valvoline has issue with the Council's action, they can address the Council directly. Merit pointed out that the CVS signage meets the City's Architectural Guidelines. He also noted that the colors and visuals of the CVS signage versus the Valvoline signage do not match. The City Attorney reviewed the options, noting that the Council could table action on the Comprehensive Sign Plan allowing more time for CVS to work with Valvoline on architectural improvements to their sign or could approve the Sign Plan subject to compliance with the recommendations of the City Planner. The Planner noted that Valvoline could appeal the Council's decision if they wanted. Blesener acknowledged that if the Comprehensive Sign Plan is approved with just the suggestion that CVS work with Valvoline, the City does lose control. Therefore, the Council may be in a better position if it approved the Comprehensive Sign Plan with the requirement that the architectural components of the Valvoline Plan be consistent with the other two freestanding signs on the property. Merit felt that it could be a lengthy process to get Valvoline to weigh in on their willingness to upgrade their sign. Merit was concerned that this would delay the installation of the CVS signage. He again noted that these are two separate parcels. Montour again asked how owns the PUD and the Comprehensive Sign Plan. The City Planner replied that no one owns the PUD. A PUD Agreement was put in place when the properties were originally developed to govern the fact that there were three separate buildings developed on two pieces of property. CVS purchased the properties, replatted it, and sold the northern parcel off. The PUD was amended to address this and the redevelopment of the southern-most building with a CVS Pharmacy. The Planner noted that a Conditional Use Permit is required for a Master Sign Plan for the entire sign encompassed by the PUD. One of the recommendations is that the Valvoline pylon sign conform with the two other pylons in terms of architectural components.