Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Council Meeting <br />3-17-03 <br />Page 9 <br />cost savings. I think, yes, at the end of the day, maybe two signs doesn't make a big difference; I <br />don't think we are going to lose a lot of sleep over this but candidly, I think one sign works. I think <br />it would be easy enough to read, it will be tastefully done and takes advantage of an existing <br />location. Again, that's an F.Y.I. <br />Mr. Marquardt asked, should we allow him the option? We're only voting on whether we would <br />allow it to happen and if he doesn't want to do it, he doesn't want to do it. <br />Mayor Rinker said that's a fair question. <br />Mrs. Cinco asked who's actually doing it-A1terCare or---- <br />Mayor Rinker A1terCare will be doing it and they will be spending probably 5 times more money if <br />they put a second sign up. But it may be, if they want to do it or not. <br />Mr. Riter said I would like to point out that when the original sign was put in, it was my <br />understanding the Chapman Group made certain improvements on behalf of the Village in return for <br />the easement and no improvements have been offered at this time. I think the Mayor also pointed <br />out during that discussion that the cut of the curb, coming from that direction, or rather going out <br />from that direction, would make it a little less safe with a sign at that location. There was some <br />discussion over the cut of the curb. I think it is just more appropriate to put both signs on the one <br />post. <br />Dr. Parker said I would allow them the opporiunity to make that decision. They have invested a <br />tremendous amount of money there. They've been a great asset and they've worked well with us. <br />Assuming they are gong to do a top notch, first class job like they did with the first sign, I wouldn't <br />have a problem allowing them to do it, as I said, I would go either way, but I agree with Mr. Riter, <br />that if they are going to do it, they would be held to certain standards and it has to be done extremely <br />well. But I wouldn't be opposed to them having that choice though. <br />Council President Buckholtz said then I have a question. At the risk of overstating everything that's <br />been said, I was definitely not bent out of shape either way but I did like the one sign with the double <br />on the one sign. Yet Mr. Marquardt's comment to give them the option to do what they want-to <br />have the choice---is a nice thing to do but let me ask you this question: would they be required to <br />bring back the sign for a final approval in any event whatever we vote tonight? <br />Mr. Samac said whatever Council would choose is what they will have to adhere to. In addition, <br />we'd probably want to have the sign go before Architectural Review Board for approval and <br />certainly because it is Village property, in addition to that, what I wanted to remind Council--and <br />maybe make part of this motion, if they choose to allow them the sign or the option, that we have <br />them provide us with proper easements and if Council chooses to place a time limit on that <br />easement that we'd grant that to place a sign on that property, I think that should be stipulated <br />also. And if there's any benefit for the Village, leYs get that up front. <br />Dr. Parker said I think we can tighten up the motion and maybe even the option that if we find <br />there's a problem with it, we can have them remove it or go ahead and put it---