03-27-96 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 27, 1996 Scalze felt back-lit signs were not consistent with the shopping center renovation. Scalze noted that in renovating the Market Plaoe, the owners have tried to comply with the architectural guidelines as much as possible. However, the sign they are proposing does not match what is being done with the shopping center. Fahey pointed out that the businesses in the shopping center need visibility. Scalze pointed out there will be other development proposals along Rice Street, and these owners will say they need visibility as well. Fahey stated that a back-lit sign was not offensive to him. Scalze asked why Fahey agreed with the prohibition of back-lit signs in the architectural guidelines. Fahey suggested perhaps prohibition of back lit signs was a mistake, and the architectural guidelines should be amended. Fahey felt if it made sense to allow back- lit signs, then he was prepared to amend the guidelines. Scalze pointed out the guidelines are in place, the City Planner recommended against approval of the sign as submitted, and yet the Architectural Review Board recommended a variance on the first proposal they review. Fahey pointed out that the issue is back-lit panels versus flood lights shining on a sign for a shopping center which almost went bankrupt. Scalze felt that if the Market Place is allowed back- lit signs, then every other business should be allowed the same thing. Again, Fahey suggested perhaps the guidelines should be modified. Scalze agreed feeling that otherwise it looks like the City is approvinq something for itself which it would not approve for other businesses in the area. Morelan felt the City needed to consider every individual circumstance. Morelan pointed out the Market Place does not meet the City's architectural guidelines, and this is an existinq building the City 7