CC PACKET 01271987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-3- • .1 'Hansen' -said he -was not . opposed to additional signage for the 2 store , but 3 4 -questioned' :the .-validity. of the claim that Get It For 5 Less had less sign exposure than other Apache stores 6 of like size; 7 8 -pointed out .that True Value Hardware' s sign could 9 only be seen from the north and the Country Club 10 Market Store, which .is. on the opposite corner from 11 Get It For Less , only has a sign on its south side; 12 13 -from this , said he perceived "corner stores in St. 14 Anthony had an advantage when it came to signage" ; 15 16 -indicated he would not oppose the granting of a vari- 17 ance for the smaller sign, but considered the larger 18 sign "would far exceed the size of the store' s sign 19 on the south side and would be out of scale with 20 other signs on the shopping center. " 21 22 Wagner -agreed this store might have an unfair advantage with 23 extra signage; 24 25 -cautioned that the Commission should be prepared to 26 give the grocery store and Minnesota Fabrics the same 27 type of variance. 28 29 Madden -said he had trouble finding Get It For Less even 30 though he lived only a few blocks from Apache; 31 32 -perceived it was quite unusual for a shopping center 33 to have such a large expanse of bare wall; 34 35 -indicated he had no problem with allowing Get It For 36 Less to erect a sign in the empty space available on 37 the east side of their store. 38 39 Werenicz -agreed it was not common for shopping centers to have 40 so much bare space on its walls; 41 42 was surprised J. C. Penney had never sought a higher 43 elevation for its entrance signage; 44 45 -thought ,-the Get It Fore Less store' s size justified at 46 least' anot•her sign on the east wall .to match the 47 larger sign it 'now has near its south entrance; but 48 49 supported the removal .of the smaller sign in- that 50 same area. • 51 52 53 54 55