My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-28-1990 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
02-28-1990 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2013 2:44:15 PM
Creation date
7/10/2013 2:42:04 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
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 />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />February 8, 1990 <br />Costa asked why a pylon was so important to Rapid Oil <br />Change. <br />Boosalis replied that Rapid Oil believes that the lack <br />of a separate pylon effects their business and that <br />being listed on a directory of a shopping center is not <br />as beneficial as having a free - standing sign. <br />It was pointed out that Rapid Oil Change could have the <br />signage directly on their building, pointing out the <br />close proximity of the building to Rice Street. <br />David Schack, Rapid Oil Change, reported that when <br />locating in Little Canada, Rapid Oil Change anticipated <br />that their business would be better than it has been. <br />Rapid Oil believes that part of the problem is the <br />signage situation. Schack reported that when the <br />decision was made to locate at the Rice at C Shopping <br />Center, the development plans showed a pole sign <br />location adjacent to their building, and it wasn't <br />until the building was under construction and Rapid Oil <br />tried to pull a permit for a pylon sign that it was <br />learned there was a problem. Rapid Oil believed it had <br />a right to a pylon sign when the documents were signed <br />with the developer. Schack requested that the Planning <br />Commission consider the request for a separate pylon <br />for Rapid Oil stating that the sign is essential to <br />their business. <br />Costa asked why the second pylon sign at the shopping <br />center could not be substituted for Rapid oil. <br />The Planner pointed out that Rapid Oil is a part of the <br />shopping center using the common accesses and shared <br />driveways. The Planner stated that a single occupancy <br />building is not allowed to have a separate pole sign, <br />and the purpose of allowing multiple pylons at a <br />shopping center is for shopping center identification <br />purposes. <br />Pedersen questioned where the City would draw the line, <br />pointing out that all businesses within shopping <br />centers would be making the same request. <br />Costa suggested that a second pylon could identify the <br />Rice at C Center and then have a larger Rapid Oil <br />Change sign. <br />Page 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.