1988-12-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Minutes - Plan Commission Page 3 December 8, 1988 Mr. Kendall seconded the motion. Chairman McCauley called for discussion on the motion. Mr. Goldman reviewed for Commission members his October 17, 1988, memorandum regarding proposed signage for the Dubbles site. The proposed primary signs consisted of a 72.25 square foot and 21 foot high freestanding sign, ,three 24 square foot canopy signs, and a 19.5 square foot wall sign. The signage for all primary signs totals 164 square feet, a total which exceeds the amount permitted for a building of the proposed size. If the entire back-lit awning is treated as a sign, an additional 192 square feet of signing should be added for a total of 356 square feet of primary signage. The proposed secondary signage consists of three incidental signs and two bulletin board signs with a total gross sign area of 44.15 square feet. This exceeds the area permitted for secondary signs on this site. Mr. Goldman made some suggestions as to how Dubbles could bring their signs into compliance with the University City Sign Code. Mr. John SChulenberger of General Sign Co. informed the Commission that he had prepared the proposed sign package for Dubbles, Inc. and, with Dubble's approval, might be able to reduce some of the sign sizes; however, the Dubbles representatives believed that each type of sign they had proposed was essential to their marketing/advertising package. Mr. SChulenberger indicated that the canopy lighting was an important part of the Dubbles concept because it provided lighting near the bUilding for customer safety and convenience. The canopy lighting would be turned off during the hours the restaurant was closed. Mr. Kendall confirmed with the applicant that no part of either the signs or the canopy lighting would move or blink. Ms. Kreishman confirmed that all proposed signs are internally illuminated with the exception of the "hamburger face" sign on the building wall. After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Safe, Ms. Kreishman and Chairman McCauley agreed that the entire area of back-lit canopy did not qualify as sign area except for the three areas of printing on the fabric. Ms. Kreishman and others expressed reservations about the hamburger sign motif; members felt it was unattractive and would do nothing to beautify or improve the appearance of Olive Boulevard. However, so long as the sign sizes conformed to those prescribed by the Sign Code for the site, the Commission could not attempt to legislate aesthetics. Therefore, Mr. Safe moved that the following condition be added to the Commission's favorable recommendation of the permit application: 4. Signs shall comply with the University City Sign Code and shall include a freestanding sign, wall signs and canopy signage or any combination thereof which conforms with city sign regulations. Mr. Kendall seconded the motion and, there being no further discussion, the motion recommending the Plan Commission's approval of Permit Application #270 passed by a vote of 5-0 with one abstention. Chairman McCauley informed the applicants that their request would be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration.