CC MINUTES 04251989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 -There would be no signage on the east side of the building except the existing pylon on which the copy might be 'changed. The existing canopy sign on the front would be relocated above the west side entry 4 where diagonal parking for the SAV I liquor warehouse shouldn't 5 interfere with its visibility from Kenzie Terrace, St. Anthony 6 Boulevard, and Silver Lake Road. 7 -He thought a burgundy and ivory combination of colors would work well 8 in the awning and should blend well with the stone on the building. 9 Copy for the proposed sign changes on the pylon sign was then considered 10 with Councilmember Makowske suggesting several modifications in 11 lettering size and position to make the sign more effective. Mr. Childs 12 advised that there would be a similar canopy sign going up on at the 13 Apache Wells establishment for which he thought a deep green. color might 14 be effective ,without altering the competition between the two City 15 operations. 16 In relation to the issues he perceived the Council needed to consider 17 with the Stonehouse signage, Mr. Childs indicated: 18 a. Since it identifies a separate building, the Stonehouse sign 19 should require no formal action at all except approval of the 20 color combinations. 21 b. The new awning system represents less than 150 square feet of sign surface which is allowed for one location. 23 C. The southern exposure of the relocated canopy can't be seen 24 anyway and therefore could easily be eliminated, leaving only 25 the lettering for Stonehouse and Dining & Dancing to be 26 considered which, in light of the many recent precedents for 27 allowing more than one sign for locations which can be seen from 28 more than one street (Kenzie Terrace, St. Anthony Boulevard, and 29 Silver Lake Road in this case) , might be allowable. 30 d. The argument could also be made that because Mannings Restaurant 31 is a separate business within the City's establishment, that 32 business might deserve its own identification. 33 e. Only the copy would be changed on the "grandfathered in" pylon 34 sign. 35 The discussion of whether regular variance processes had to be followed 36 when it came to community owned buildings centered around the assumption 37 which had been reinforced with the licensing procedures, that the City 38 as a regulatory agency should not have to seek licenses or variances for 39 itself. The consensus was that of all the signage being considered, 40 only the existing canopy signage would require a variance for any 41 private business- seeking the same signage approval. 42 Council Action 14