SP-075 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SP-75 -4- Nov. 9, 1976 The applicant has provided the outline for a sign plan. Once i.t is decided what signs will be approved as part of the plan, the staff can draw a detailed sign plan meeting the Council's intent. planninq Commission Consideration (IO-19-76): The City Planner reviewed his report noting that the applicant had made a similar request earlier this year which was denied by the City Council. The Planner further noted that t~is request apparently contained an option as to what would be included in the sig"" plan. Mr. Mark Clark was present to answer questions. Wickland stated that he was unsure exactly what signs are going where. Fredrickson questioned what the Council was looking for. Councilman Hardt indicated that the Council is looking for all fui:ure signing. Councilman Hardt further stated that he didn't feel the Planning Commission should be responsible for designing the sign plan, rather, this should be the applicant's responsibility. Mr. Clark noted that the signing for the Clark Pharmacy Building has been hampered by the presence of the many U-Hauls parked on the property to the south. Fred~ickson indicated that the Planning Commission recognizes this problem that the Pharmacy has regarding visibility. Partyka asked Mr. Clark what signs he would prefer to keep. Mr. Clark stated that he would like to lower the 4' x 161 IIClark Pharmacy" sign on the face of the canopy, leave the 16" x 16' "Brighton Cleanerslf sign as is unless a new tenant moves into this location at wh~ch time the sign would be replaced by a 36" x 25' sign mounted on the canopy, and make provision for a 36" x 14' wall mounted sign for nBrighton Optical". Mr. Clark also indicated that the lower panel on the ground sign would be removed. Partyka asked how wide was the "Clark Pharmacyll sign. Mr. Clark stated it was 16 feet wide.