Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING <br /> MAY 12 , 1992 <br /> 3 PAGE 5 <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Stop-N-Shop be removed from the canopy sign . There is no <br /> 6 provision in the Sign Ordinance for the type of canopy <br /> 7 sign that is being requested . The Sign Ordinance defines <br /> 8 a canopy sign as permanent roof structure attached to and <br /> 9 supported by the building. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Also , Madden advised that the request did not meet the <br /> 12 three requirements for signage and the Planning <br /> 13 Commission had to deny the request . <br /> 14 <br /> 15 At the Planning Commission meeting there was a <br /> 16 contradiction noticed in the letter received from Conoco <br /> 17 regarding their requirements . <br /> 18 <br /> 19 <br /> 20 In one part of the letter it was stated that Conoco brand <br /> 21 requirements mandate. the installation of the Conoco <br /> 22 capsule sign on a canopy fascia . The policy does not <br /> 23 permit co-mingling of their trademark sign and any <br /> 24 proprietary sign on a shared basis . . <br /> 25 <br /> In another part of the Conoco letter it was stated that <br /> accommodations would be made for local signage codes <br /> 28 whereby pole-mounted capsule signs would be allowed over <br /> 29 canopy or building capsule signs . <br /> 30 <br /> 31 Madden stated that the Planning Commission had felt the <br /> 32 problems being encountered were created by the oil <br /> 33 company and not the Sign Ordinance . He noted that all <br /> 34 members of the Planning Commission hoped something could <br /> 35 be worked out with the Superette as it would be a good <br /> 36 addition to the community. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Motion by Marks , second by Wagner to deny the request on <br /> 39 the same basis as the Planning Commission , the three <br /> 40 conditions on the application as required by law had not <br /> 41 been met and that the matter be returned to the Planning <br /> 42 Commission for clarification of the matter referred to in <br /> 43 the last paragraph of the Conoco letter which addresses <br /> 44 signage on the pylon sign and signage on the, canopy . <br /> 45 <br /> 46 Motion carried unanimously <br /> 47 <br /> 48 <br /> 49 The City Manager advised if the brand of gasoline were <br /> 50 referred to on the canopy sign it would make the sign <br /> 51 non-conforming. He noted that presently there is a <br /> subcommittee made up of members of the Planning <br /> Commission reviewing the Sign Ordinance . <br /> 54 <br />