Laserfiche WebLink
02 <br /> City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br /> August 26, 2003 <br /> Page 2 <br /> 1 VI. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND STAFF. <br /> 2 A. Planning Commission—August 19, 2003. <br /> 3 1. Resolution 03-073, re: St. Anthony Shopping Center, 2900 Pentagon Drive; <br /> 4 comprehensive sign amendment. <br /> 5 Planning Commissioner Todd Hanson noted a public hearing had been held August 19, 2003, <br /> 6 regarding the St. Anthony Shopping Center, LLC, request to amend its comprehensive sign plan. <br /> 7 He added the Center had recently signed leases with two tenants that had regional and national <br /> 8 scope: Bumper to Bumper and Subway. He explained these tenants had developed a logo with <br /> 9 uniform signage to promote their stores and gain recognition; however, the current <br /> 10 comprehensive sign plan did not provide sufficient flexibility of sign design to accommodate <br /> 11 regional and national tenants who had distinctive and uniform signage for all their locations. <br /> 12 Commissioner Hanson stated the petitioner was requesting an amendment to the St. Anthony <br /> 13 Shopping Center's comprehensive sign plan to allow for logo signs which deviated from what <br /> 14 was currently allowed. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 It was noted staff recommended approval of the comprehensive sign plan amendment for the St. <br /> 17 Anthony Shopping Center, recognizing the marketplace with logo signs and the need for store <br /> 18 recognition. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Councilmember Horst stated he was involved with the original sign plan, which was meant to <br /> 21 keep a consistent, modern appearance to the shopping center. He noted the other tenants had <br /> 22 been expected to follow the plan. He indicated he would be disappointed if this sign amendment <br /> 23 allowed signs like the current Bumper-to-Bumper sign, as he felt"it stuck out like a garage-sale <br /> 24 sign." <br /> 25 <br /> 26 Councilmember Horst noted the national franchises were not locked into only one sign. He <br /> 27 discussed ways the signs could be changed to be acceptable. He stated a quality tenant should be <br /> 28 expected to have quality signage. Councilmember Horst indicated he was opposed to amending <br /> 29 the signage criteria. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 Commissioner Hanson asked a representative of the petitioner, if he had a rebuttal. The <br /> 32 representative responded he did know Bumper to Bumper had other criteria they could use; <br /> 33 however, he felt the City did not want to place restrictions on good employers who were bringing <br /> 34 jobs and businesses to the City. He added he understood examples of signs had been submitted. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 Councilmember Horst indicated the example he had seen was the kind of sign the City had been <br /> 37 trying to avoid in the shopping center. He stated he did not want to prohibit tenants but wanted <br /> 38 to provide a consistent look to the shopping center. The petitioner's representative responded <br /> 39 these were reasonable thoughts; however, he did not think Bumper to Bumper could reengineer <br /> 40 its signs for each community. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Councilmember Horst indicated he felt Bumper to Bumper had a wide range of sign choices. <br /> 43 The petitioner noted he would hesitate to put up a lot of barriers to bringing them into the City. <br /> 44 He added updated signage that would be more consistent for the Center could be considered. <br /> 45 <br />