PL PACKET 03171987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Hansen' said he wa-s 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 1-1 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 ante 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•. Ge.t It For .Less store' s size justified at 46 -least another 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