06-20-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved Gundlach replied that was correct. Fernelius added that if the tenant left and the developers decide to carve up the space for additional tenants, then they would have to share allotted signage space. Baker inquired if every tenant is allowed a twenty-eight square foot sign. Gundlach replied that is correct, every tenant gets a twenty-eight square foot sign. Baker asked if they are approving them to have their sign above another shops window. Gundlach replied that was correct for Building C and that does not mean that they would get more than one sign, just the location has changed. Elaine Leeko, owner of Silver Lane Quilting, inquired if it was Main Street Village’s signage changing or the building to the north. Gundlach replied that the temporary signs in windows, and the directional signs would apply to the building that Ms. Leeko is in. The discussion regarding signs above the windows would apply to the building to the north. Leeko inquired if at the south east corner everyone in the building would be added to that sign to be visible from the four way stop. Gundlach replied that she believes the applicants are adding the names of just the tenants in the east-west portion of the building but that the applicant could speak more specifically on this. Leeko stated that as the landscaping matures she will loose her sign visibility, so directional sign on that corner listing all the tenants would be beneficial to the whole development. Fernelius replied that if the application is approved, the applicant can put more than one tenant on the sign. John Ordway, Pratt-Ordway Properties, replied that both directional signs would be able to list any tenant in the building that would like to be on them. If it turns out to be just Limu and Jimmy Johns, they would not have the full twenty-eight square feet because they have a full sign over the front of their shops. The directory-style sign would be smaller. They are hoping when a restaurant goes into the corner spot, they will have the predominant sign. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Baker, Second by O’Brien to. MOTION APPROVED. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion by O’Keefe, Second by Zisla to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE ATTACHED SP2006-010 . RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MOTION CARRIED. 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, Public Hearing: LP2004-004 Site Plan Review in Order to Incorporate an Additional Drive-Thru Lane at the West End of the Property. The applicant is proposing a Site Plan review in order to construct an additional drive- thru lane at the west end of the property. Currently, a drive-thru lane exists in this location and the applicant is proposing an additional lane to accommodate more vehicles stacking on the property. The applicant has indicated a need for this additional drive-thru I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2006\06-20-2006.docPage 10 of 15