Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> APRIL 21 , 1992 <br /> 3 PAGE 7 <br /> 4 <br /> 5 <br /> 6 Management Assistant Urbia explained that a sign variance <br /> 7 had previously been approved for the applicants to have <br /> 8 a pylon sign with the Stop-N-Shop sign and gasoline brand <br /> 9 signs . Originally, the request was for two Phillips 66 <br /> 10 signs ( 44 " by 44" ) . The current request is for two Conoco <br /> 11 signs ( 2 ' by 6 ' ) to be placed on the north and south ends <br /> 12 of the canopy, on the side closest to the road., <br /> 13 <br /> 14 He advised that there is no provision in the Sign <br /> 15 Ordinance for the type of canopy sign that is being <br /> 16 requested . The Sign Ordinance defines a canopy as a <br /> 17 permanent roof structure attached to and supported by the <br /> 18 building. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Urbia also stated that the Sign Ordinance allows for a <br /> 21 pylon sign for a gas station to have brand identification <br /> 22 signs . If the Conoco signs were to be allowed on the <br /> 23 canopy, there would be no brand identification signs on <br /> 24 the pylon sign and the pylon sign would be nonconforming. <br /> 25 <br /> 6 <br /> Originally , staff had determined this request could be <br /> approved administratively. It was later determined that <br /> 29 the request required a Public Hearing. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 A letter was received from Mr . Sarna and Mr . Vogt giving <br /> 32 the history of why they had changed from Phillips 66 to <br /> 33 Conoco. A new policy at Phillips 66 would not allow their <br /> 34 brand sign to be placed below that of the Stop-N-Shop <br /> 35 sign . Conoco has indicated they want their brand sign <br /> 36 placed , on the canopy and not on a pole. The proposed <br /> 37 Conoco sign would be smaller in size than the proposed <br /> 38 Phillips 66 sign . <br /> 39 <br /> 40 A letter from Conoco to Mr . Vogt stated that Conoco brand <br /> 41 requirements mandate the installation of the Conoco <br /> 42 capsule sign on 'a canopy fascia. The policy does not <br /> 43 permit co-mingling of their trademark sign and any <br /> 44 proprietary sign on a shared basis . <br /> 45 <br /> 46 Urbia noted a contradiction in the Conoco letter which <br /> 47 would not allow co-mingling on a canopy sign but would <br /> 48 allow accommodations for local signage codes whereby <br /> 49 pole-mounted capsule signs would be allowed over canopy <br /> 50 or building capsule signs . <br /> 51 <br /> The City Manager, noted that the owners of the Stop-N-Shop <br /> had not completed the sign request application. <br /> 54 <br />