Laserfiche WebLink
allocated sign area for the property. The CDDSG also state that if there is a more- <br />restrictive requirement, the more restrictive requirement shall apply. <br /> <br />Light stated that when the City adopted the Commercial Development Design Standards <br />& Guidelines (CDDSG), the Ordinance did contain a general provision dealing with <br />conflicts. It stated that if there was a conflict between two standards in the new guidelines <br />and in the existing Code that the more restrictive of the two would apply. <br /> <br />Davidson asked if that would mean the current window signs are an unlawful sign. <br /> <br />Light replied that assuming that is what the CDDSG states, however, he was unable to <br />locate his copy. <br /> <br />Wood replied that window signs are not mentioned at all in the CDDSG. He stated that <br />he assumes if the signs are not mentioned then they would not be an allowed sign type. <br /> <br />Lathrop stated that it appears the point is mute. <br /> <br />Davidson replied that the point is unclear. <br /> <br />Wood stated that there were no window signs approved on the Final Development Plan. <br /> <br />Davidson requested a five-minute recess to allow the City Attorney and staff to research <br />whether the current window signs are in violation of City Code. <br /> <br />Davidson called the meeting back to order. <br /> <br />Sam Light, City Attorney, stated that in regard to the unfriendly amendment, if the <br />Council's desire is to prohibit window signs, it would require approval of a motion. The <br />City Code does not flatly prohibit those types of signs. <br /> <br />Davidson called for a roll call on the unfriendly amendment to include a condition to <br />Resolution No. 4, Series 1999 - A Resolution Approving an Amended Final PUD <br />Development Plan for a Modified Sign Program for Rite Aid, Lot 2, Centennial Valley, <br />Parcel L1, Replat, that the lighted window signs are prohibited and are to be removed. <br /> <br />Roll call was taken. The amendment passed by a vote of 4-3, with Lathrop, Levihn, and <br />Keany voting against. <br /> <br />Davidson called for a roll call on Resolution No. 4, Series 1999 - A Resolution <br />Approving an Amended Final PUD Development Plan for a Modified Sign Program for <br />Rite Aid, Lot 2, Centennial Valley, Parcel L1, Replat, as amended. <br /> <br />Roll call was taken. The motion was approved by a 6-1 vote, with Mayer voting against. <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br /> <br />