My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL AGENDA 06211988 (2)
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Agendas
>
1988
>
PL AGENDA 06211988 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 3:13:45 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 3:13:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
15
SP Name
PL AGENDA 06211988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 When Commissioner Hansen said he still had a hard time understanding <br /> 2 why Eberhardt had chosen to put money into a mural rather than <br /> 1 3 towards the uniform signage the City had been requesting over the <br /> 4 years, Mr. Johnson reiterated that the $1,500.00 could be taken from <br /> 5 cash flow monies which are inadequate to cover both a large project <br /> 6 like uniform signage and the costs of getting stores ready for new <br /> 7 tenants. <br /> 8 Commissioner Werenicz commented that he perceived that when the <br /> 9 center manager had decided to put the City logo into the sign he had <br /> 10 created a "huge sign for which a variance the size of which no other <br /> 11 applicant had ever been granted" . He also anticipated future <br /> 12 applicants would see the mural as nothing more than a large sign <br /> 13 advertising the City which established a precedent for future signage <br /> 14 of the same size all over the City. <br /> 15 The Commissioner agreed with Mr. Childs that "beauty is in the eye of <br /> 16 the beholder" , but said he perceived a similarity with the <br /> 17 "atrocious" paintings on the side of buildings in the Cedar Riverside <br /> 18 area. <br /> 19 Commissioner Hansen drew a comparison between the mural and <br /> 20 billboards whose intent is to draw the public's attention and which <br /> 21 had been banned from the City because they diverted drivers' <br /> 22 attention. He questioned whether such diversion would be smart in an <br /> 23 area like this one where a lot of traffic converges onto Kenzie <br /> 24 Terrace from three different busy streets. <br /> 25 The Commissioner also wondered whether the City would have any more <br /> 26 control over the maintenance of this mural than had been demonstrated <br /> 27 over the "disgracefully deteriorated" pylon sign which identified the <br /> 28 other shopping center in the same area before it was torn down to <br /> 29 make way for the new senior building. <br /> 30 Commissioner London agreed with Commissioner Werenicz inference that <br /> 31 some murals were "low budget, stopgap measures to temporarily <br /> 32 brighten up run down neighborhoods." He told Mr. Johnson he thought <br /> 33 he should save his money for some real improvements in the shopping <br /> 34 center. <br /> 35 Commissioner Madden said he would favor adding the City's logo to <br /> 36 the mural as "a boost for the City" . He pointed to several "very <br /> 37 attractive" murals like the temporary one on the back of the WCCO <br /> 38 building and another on the Valspar building which he thought had <br /> 39 both been well done. <br /> 40 Mr. Childs told Mr. Johnson he could see where there was little <br /> 41 chance there would be a favorable consensus on the Commission for a <br /> 42 logo on the mural. He also said that as far as the City needing a <br /> 43 sign to boost it, $5,000.00 is about to be spent for a sign in <br /> 44 Trillium Park which would be similar to the entrance sign to Blaine. <br /> 45 The Manager said his own personal opinion was that having the City <br /> 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.