My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1999 01 19
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1999 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1999 01 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:44 PM
Creation date
2/3/2004 9:56:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
1/19/1999
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1999 01 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
pharmacy canopy light shielding detail be added to the Amended Final PUD Plans, <br />seconded by Keany. <br /> <br />Sam Light, City Attorney, asked for clarification that the Planning Commission condition <br />of approval that the drive-through pharmacy directional sign at the northwest corner of <br />the site be eliminated has been struck from the Resolution. <br /> <br />Lathrop replied, yes. <br /> <br />Sisk offered a friendly amendment that the directional sign located in the northeast corner <br />be removed. <br /> <br />Coleman replied that he identified the signs incorrectly, the existing directional sign is in <br />the northwest corner. <br /> <br />Sisk amended his friendly amendment to read that the drive-through pharmacy <br />directional sign located in the northwest corner be removed and relocated to the northeast <br />corner. <br /> <br />Lathrop replied that the sign in the northwest corner of the drive-through pharmacy <br />would be most beneficial to the elderly customers as it identifies the last movement <br />required to get under the canopy. <br /> <br />Sisk withdrew his friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that Council's overall goal is not to stop someone from advertising but to <br />prevent over-signing of McCaslin Boulevard. He offered a friendly amendment to allow <br />the additional signs reading 'pharmacy' and eliminate the window signs. <br /> <br />Amendment was not accepted by Lathrop. <br /> <br />Davidson offered an unfriendly amendment to allow the additional signs containing the <br />word 'pharmacy' but eliminate the window signs, seconded by Sisk. <br /> <br />Coleman replied that Rite Aid is advertising two services with the window signs. The <br />first service, one-hour photo processing, is not critical to the day-to-day operations of the <br />store. The second sign, which states Rite Aid is open 24-hours, is. He did not agree with <br />the request to remove that sign. <br /> <br />Davidson called for Council comments and questions. <br /> <br />Lathrop asked whether the current sign code addresses illuminated window signs. <br /> <br />Wood replied that window signs are not an allowable sign type under the Commercial <br />Development Design Standards & Guidelines (CDDSG). They are, however, allowed in <br />the underlying sign code, not to exceed 25% of the glazing area, or 25% of the maximum <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.