Laserfiche WebLink
-6- <br /> • = -:1 ;..,. <br /> : suggested applicant sit down with .staff to explore his other options <br /> 2 <br /> .. for signage acceptable to the City.: <br /> 4 Hansen: would oppose any expansion of signage until 'he sees how new plans <br /> for this center and the Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment Authority <br /> 5 <br /> project -.in the adjoining center progress. <br /> 7 Werenicz: perceived store needed some- identification because Mobil statibn <br /> 8 somewhat obstructed view from north but concurred with other Com- <br /> 9 missioners that signage need not be a free-standing sign. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 The hearing was closed at 8:25 P.M. <br /> 12 _ <br /> 13 Commission Recommends Council Deny Free-Standing Sign for Dairy Queen <br /> 14 _ <br /> 15 Motion by Madden, seconded by Werenicz to recommend the Council deny the request <br /> 16 for a free-standing sign for the .St. Anthony Dairy Queen at 2612 Highway 88, <br /> 17 in anticipation that uniform signage for the entire shopping center would <br /> 18 be forthcoming and the City could best deal with that probability by not granting <br /> y 19 any further signage variances in the St. Anthony Shopping Center. <br /> 0 <br /> 21 Motion carried unanimously. <br /> 23 REQUEST FOR SIGNAGE FOR J. T. VARGAS REAL ESTATE OFFICE AT 3909 SILVER LAKE ROAD <br /> 24 <br /> 25 The Chair opened the hearing at 8:37 P.M. <br /> 26 <br /> •�' 2.7 Notice of the hearing had been published in the October 8th Bulletin and mailed to <br /> 28 all property owners of record within 200 feet of the subject property. <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Request: variance to Ordinance regulations related to free-standing signs <br /> 31 - to allow installation of an 8 foot X 3 foot (24 square feet on each <br /> 32 -side) sign in same location where several unacceptable signs for <br /> 33 previous tenants had been sited. <br /> 34 <br /> 35 Proponents: Jose T. Vargas, same address. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Opponents: .�- none (and no calls received by staff) . <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Staff,.input: perceived neither the sign erected by the last tenant nor the <br /> 40 sketch of the sign the applicant proposes to replace it with <br /> 41 was exactly what the Commission had in mind for the "groundhugging <br /> 42, "`' °<< ' -'fa sign which should have had no more than six inches between <br /> 43 it and the berm below -it" the City had previously approved; <br /> 44 recommend approval only if sign extends the full length of the <br /> 45 ; berm or is reduced to fit the berm; <br /> 46 <br /> 47 agreed to let Mr. Vargas know the following day whether 'there <br /> 4 8 ; . ,,.would.be adequate ,space between the berm and the County right-of-way <br /> 49 > to provide the required setback if he sloped the berm towards <br /> 50 the street; <br /> - .51.-.: . : -suggested the townhome signage next door would be a good model <br /> • 52 <br /> 53 to follow. <br /> _ <br /> 54 <br /> 55' <br /> I <br />