Laserfiche WebLink
• �1. `i <br /> -4- <br /> Proponents: same as for conditional use permit. <br /> Opponents: none. <br /> Commission recommendation: agreed with staff recommendation that "pylon" sign <br /> should not be allowed. <br /> Council Reaction: <br /> Makowske - told proponents that free-standing signs had been denied for Zantigo <br /> Restaurant in Apache Plaza as well as other types of City businesses <br /> in the past. <br /> Ranallo - said the Council had also denied additional signage for Slumberland, <br /> etc. in the same center to avoid proliferation of signage. <br /> Sundland - recalled a long history of opposition to "pylon" signs in St. Anthony. <br /> Marks - agreed with Commission suggestion that a moratorium on further signage <br /> in the center be imposed in anticipation of a uniform sign policy <br /> being instituted with the new store fronts. <br /> A colored drawing of what the Eberhardt Company envisioned the St. Anthony Shopping <br /> Center would look like after the new store fronts and canopy over the walks <br /> had been installed with the funds the center owners had allocated for that purpose <br /> had been shown by staff at both. the Commission hearing and that evening. <br /> The Dairy Queen owner told the Councilmembers his decision to remodel his own <br /> _.store to conform to that de-sign had been predicated upon-the "verbal" agreement <br /> he had with Lara Seven, 'who manages the center for Eberhardt, who he said he <br /> considered to be "one of the best manager's they've ever had down there, having <br /> found tenants for all the empty stores with a waiting list to fill any future <br /> vacancies". Mr. Plaisted said he perceived the owner's willingness to finally <br /> make these improvements had to some degree resulted from the manager' s telling <br /> them he had threatened to move his Dairy Queen away from the center if substantial <br /> improvements to the center as a whole were not made immediately. Other factor's <br /> in that decision, as the franchise owner saw them, were the fact that the Eberhardt <br /> representative recognized that "there wasn't a single store owner in the center <br /> who didn't want the improvements made and that the City' s patience with the <br /> owner' s failure to make any changes down there had just about run out" . <br /> There was a general Council concurrence with the last statement and Councilmember <br /> Ranallo added that the City had even offered to support Industrial Development <br /> Bond financing for those improvements. <br /> Mr. Childs pointed out that there would still be a Dairy Queen logo on the mansard <br /> roof which would be in keeping with the signage proposed for the rest of the <br /> stores in that shopping center and that the existing revolving sign on top of <br /> the building now had been "grandfathered in" with the new Sign Ordinance. <br /> Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to follow the Planning Commission recommenda- <br /> tion to deny the request for a free-standing sign for .the St. Anthony Dairy <br /> Queen at 2612 Highway 88, in anticipation that uniform signage for the entire <br /> shopping center would be forthcoming and the City could best deal with that <br /> probability by not granting any further signage variances in the St. Anthony <br /> Shopping Center. <br /> Motion carried unanimously. <br />