PL PACKET 09162003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes August 26, 2003 Page 2 1 VI. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND STAFF. 2 A. Planning Commission—August 19, 2003. 3 1. Resolution 03-073, re: St. Anthony Shopping Center, 2900 Pentagon Drive; 4 comprehensive sign amendment. 5 Planning Commissioner Todd Hanson noted a public hearing had been held August 19, 2003, 6 regarding the St. Anthony Shopping Center, LLC, request to amend its comprehensive sign plan. 7 He added the Center had recently signed leases with two tenants that had regional and national 8 scope: Bumper,to Bumper and Subway. He explained these tenants had developed a logo with 9 uniform signage to promote their stores and gain recognition; however,the current 10 comprehensive sign plan did not provide sufficient flexibility of sign design to accommodate 11 regional and national tenants who had distinctive and uniform signage for all their locations. 12 Commissioner Hanson stated the petitioner was requesting an amendment to the St. Anthony 13 Shopping Center's comprehensive sign plan to allow for logo signs which deviated from what 14 was currently allowed. 15 16 It was noted staff recommended approval of the comprehensive sign plan amendment for the St. 17 Anthony Shopping Center, recognizing the marketplace with logo signs and the need for store 18 recognition. 19 20 Councilmember Horst stated he was involved with the original sign plan, which was meant to 21 keep a consistent, modern appearance to the shopping center. He noted the other tenants had 22 been expected to follow the plan. He indicated he would be disappointed if this sign amendment 23 allowed signs like the current Bumper-to-Bumper sign, as he felt"it stuck out like a garage-sale 24 sign." 25 26 Councilmember Horst noted the national franchises were not locked into only one sign. He 27 discussed ways the signs could be changed to be acceptable. He stated a quality tenant should be 28 expected to have quality signage. Councilmember Horst indicated he was opposed to amending 29 the signage criteria. 30 31 Commissioner Hanson asked a representative of the petitioner, Dan(?) Lee(?), if he had a 32 rebuttal. Mr. Lee(?) responded he did know Bumper to Bumper had other criteria they could 33 use; however, he felt the City did not want to place restrictions on good employers who were 34 bringing jobs and businesses to the City. He added he understood examples of signs had been 35 submitted. 36 37 Councilmember Horst indicated the example he had seen was the kind of sign the City had been 38 trying to avoid in the shopping center. He stated he did not want to prohibit tenants but wanted 39 to provide a consistent look to the shopping center. Mr. Lee(?) responded these were reasonable 40 thoughts; however, he did not think Bumper to Bumper could reengineer its signs for each 41 community. 42 43 Councilmember Horst indicated he felt Bumper to Bumper had a wide range of sign choices. 44 Mr. Lee(?) noted he would hesitate to put up a lot of barriers to bringing them into the City. He 45 added updated signage that would be more consistent for the Center could be considered. 46