My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-27-96 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
03-27-96 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 4:47:10 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:57:28 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.
/
17
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 />MARCH 27, 1996 <br />vacuum without any real application. Fahey also <br />pointed out that the ordinance provides for a variance <br />procedure which allows exceptions to be made. <br />DeLonais pointed out that there is some confusion on <br />the matter of back lit signs. During the workshops at <br />which the architectural design guidelines were <br />developed, the discussion was that back lit signs would <br />not be allowed on buildings. <br />Scalze pointed out that the guidelines prohibit plastic <br />back lit signs. <br />Fahey agreed the process must be fluid and the City <br />needs to get some experience in applying the <br />guidelines. Again, Fahey pointed out the guidelines <br />were developed in a vacuum. While the sign proposed by <br />the Market Place does not meet the literal standards of <br />the code, the Council has the ability to grant a <br />variance. <br />Scalze pointed out that the guidelines contain six <br />pages of sign elements. Scalze felt the meaning of <br />these guidelines is clear. <br />Again, Fahey pointed out that the Council has the <br />ability to grant a variance. <br />Morelan indicated his point was that it does not make <br />sense to hold an existing building to the letter of the <br />sign ordinance. <br />Pedersen stated that he had no problem with the back <br />lit sign. Pedersen asked if there was more that could <br />be done with the sign so that it doesn't look like a <br />big billboard. <br />The City Planner reported that he has discussed the <br />sign with the property owners and told them his <br />preference was the sign be flood lit rather than <br />plastic back lit panels. The Planner indicated he <br />appreciated the property owners comments that this is <br />the type of sign for a retail use, and acknowledged the <br />revisions made to the sign are improvements. However, <br />another means of illuminating the sign was preferable <br />to plastic back lit panels. The Planner also suggested <br />his initial thoughts were the sign should have some <br />sort of roof structure on top. However, after thinking <br />about it, it would cause the sign to look dated. <br />Fahey pointed out that a roof structure would not <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.