Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JUNE 9, 1999 <br />One would be removed, and the other replaced with the sign proposed. <br />Glodowski described the sign in detail for the Commission, and again <br />indicated that there are no other options offered by the Hardee's corporate <br />office. Glodowski pointed out that the Architectural Guidelines <br />discourage a backlit sign of this nature; however, it is not prohibited. <br />Duray pointed out that there is no problem with the pylon as proposed. <br />The concern is with the backlit building sign. Duray suggested that once <br />the City deviates from its policy, it will be faced with similar requests <br />from other businesses. <br />Carson again pointed out that the City denied a similar request from <br />Arby's. The City Planner reported that Arby's requested a backlit canopy <br />sign, which was denied. The Planner also pointed out that Taco John's is <br />considering a similar request for a backlit building sign. <br />Duray felt it was important that the City stuck with its sign requirements. <br />Glodowski pointed out that Hardee's is changing its logo, therefore, it is <br />not possible to retain the individually lit letters which are currently on the <br />building. Also, the sign options being presented this evening are the only <br />ones available from Hardee's corporate office and he knows of no other <br />options. Glodowski indicated that the architectural guidelines discourage <br />and do not prohibit backlit building signage. Glodowski also pointed out <br />that he is proposing to replace two existing building signs with one. <br />Carson pointed out that there are Hardee's Restaurants located around the <br />country, and suggested that there are other options available given that <br />Hardee's has to comply with the regulations of each city in which they are <br />located. Glodowski stated that the only options he is aware of have to do <br />with sign dimensions. <br />Kraemer suggested that if the City denies the illuminated building sign, <br />Hardee's will present another option. <br />Knudsen asked if the Commission could allow the illuminated building <br />sign for a period of time requiring that it eventually be replaced with a <br />non - illuminated sign. The City Planner replied that this could not be done. <br />If the Commission approves the illuminated building sign, that would then <br />become an approved sign. <br />Duray felt that any signage approved should meet the City's Architectural <br />Guidelines. <br />PAGE 178 <br />