My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2006 04 20
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2006 Planning Commission Agendas and Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2006 04 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:16 AM
Creation date
10/19/2006 3:27:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2006 04 20
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />APRIL 20 2006 <br />Page 14 of 17 <br /> <br />Commission Questions of Staff: None. <br /> <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />John Huff, RMD Sign Co., representing the property owner and tenants, stated that he came to <br />answer the Commission questions regarding the four proposals. <br /> <br />Commission Questions of Applicant: <br />Loo thanked Huff for the concept designs. <br /> <br />Sheets asked what do the owners want for the signage program and how do the tenants feel about <br />the proposed concepts. <br /> <br />Huff replied that some of tenants have seen the proposals and the reactions have been mixed. <br />There are 14 tenants and only 8 spaces per side. <br /> <br />Members of the Public: None <br /> <br />Commission Questions of Staff and Applicant: None. <br /> <br />Public Hearing Closed / Commission Comments: <br />Hartman stated that when there is no frame around each panel they seem to all run together. <br /> <br />Sheets stated that she prefers the color background instead of the white. She also supports the use <br />of corporate logos. She would also support concepts 2, 3 and 4. <br /> <br />Loo stated that she supports the opaque colored background, the use of corporate logos and <br />concept #2. <br /> <br />Lipton stated that concept #2 gives the maximum discretion to the owner and tenant. <br /> <br />Pritchard supports the use of corporate logos; concept # 1 frames each tenant sign; the lettering is <br />lost in #2; and #3 and #4 get lost in the green. <br /> <br />Dalton stated that he supports #2 and #3 because they allow flexibility. <br /> <br />Deborski stated that he agrees with Dalton and would add the use of corporate logos with the <br />corporate color. <br /> <br />McA vinew stated that he agrees with Deborski. <br /> <br />Dalton moved and Sheets seconded a motion to approve Resolution No.8, Series 2006, a <br />resolution recommending approval of an amended final planned unit development (PUD) plan <br />related to project monument and wall signage for Christopher Plaza, Lot 8, Christopher Village, <br />Fourth Filing with the following conditions as revised: <br />1. The monument signs shall be approved as submitted with the following conditions: <br />a. Character heights shall be limited to an 8-inch minimum for primary text and 3- <br />inch minimum for secondary text; <br />b. Maximum total size for each sign face shall not exceed 60 SF; <br />c. Background panel material to be opaque (only characters or logos may <br />illuminate) ; <br />d Minimum individual tenant panel size shall be 5 SF; and <br />e. The sign panels shall incorporate the following sign consistency design elements: <br />1) uniform tenant panel size; and 2) uniform background color as depicted in <br />Concept # 2. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.