Laserfiche WebLink
I/ <br /> 3 <br /> 1 Chair Wagner opened his presentation by conveying the Planning <br /> 2 Commissioners' holiday greetings to the Councilmembers. <br /> 3 Revised Signage Plan Aporoved for R. L. Johnson Building at 3055 Old <br /> 4 Highway 8 <br /> 5 The Commission Chair then reported the following about the above <br /> 6 variance to the City Sign Code request which he indicated the sign <br /> 7 company representative was present to discuss: <br /> 8 *the variance was necessary for the free standing sign proposed to be <br /> 9 erected by R. L. Johnson Investment at the vacated Medtronic Building <br /> 10 at 3055 Old Highway 8 for which the investment company is seeking up <br /> 11 to four more tenants in addition to' StrategiCare, Inc. , major tenant <br /> 12 in the tower section of the building; <br /> 13 *the applicants had proposed a much larger sign in a location not <br /> 14 clearly identified during the Commission's November 15th public <br /> 15 hearing on the variance and had been directed to work with staff <br /> 16 on a more acceptable but effective sign for the building . and to <br /> 17 provide more specifics as to its proposed siting; <br /> 18 *the sign and its base had been reduced to a 9 foot X 5 foot, 4 inch <br /> 19 with a 3 foot base (96 square foot) size, ,which the Commissioners were <br /> 0 more comfortable with than the originally proposed 118 square foot <br /> 1 sign which would have been almost 11 feet tall; <br /> 22 *the sign would be lighted but the copy would have white letters <br /> 23 against a dark background which should not be as brilliant as dark on <br /> 24 white might be; <br /> 25 *the location had been specifically identified as providing -at least <br /> 26 80 foot setbacks from the driving surfaces of both Old Highway 8 and <br /> 27 Highway 88, where it wouldn't interfere with any traffic flow; <br /> 28 *the Commissioners also perceived that although a variance for a sign <br /> 29 larger than the Sign Code allowed would be .necessary, the proposed <br /> 30 sign presented a much. more professional appearance to that building <br /> 31 and its environs than might have resulted if individual tenants were <br /> 32 allowed to put up the conglomeration of wall signage in all different <br /> 33 colors, sizes, lighted or unlighted, on all four sides of the <br /> 34 building.; <br /> 35 *all current signage for the building would be eliminated and the <br /> 36 sign would be turned off by 10:00 P.M. <br /> 37 In his November 14th memorandum, Mr. Childs advised that 'he considered <br /> 38 the trade off of the downsized free standing sign to be a good one in <br /> 39 lieu of wall signs on the building, but recommended that point be <br /> Wclearly stated with the Council's motion to avoid any future confusion <br /> related to the number of signs on the building. <br />