PL MINUTES 07191983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-9- Motion carried. unanimously. , ,• Commissioner Bjorklund ,registered his complaint "as a resident" to the continuance of the advertising for the sale of leeches at 2817 Stinson Boulevard, even though the sign had been moved back off the City right-of-way, perceiving that type of signage is inappropriate in ' that neighborhood. He was concerned a precedent was being set for residential signs advertising Avon and Amway products , etc. When he brought up the subject of the poorly maintained Apache . Shopping Center sign on Stinson, Mr. Childs told him that sign is grandfathered in the Sign Ordinance and his conversations with the Apache management had indicated that sign would be included with an overall improvement program for the center proposed for the near future. When the proposal for a. sign identifying the services being provided in the Parkview facility which had been -submitted through the Community Services was considered, it was the general consensus of the Commission that only 'a monument type sign identifying only the school and the City would be acceptable . The Chair mentioned she could not recall the sign for the Apache Medical Center which the Council had approved over a Commission recommendation for denial being included in the listing of variances by staff . Mr. Childs agreed to check the matter out. In his July 13th memorandum, Mr. Childs had reported the Council 's inclination to have signage which would indicate the merchants in the St. Anthony Village Shopping Center were still in operation during the redevelopment period and he had attached a possible sign which listed those merchants. Commissioner Franzese wondered whether the "Now Leasing" sign attached to the center identification sign would not serve the same purpose. Several points of opposition werevoiced by Commission members , including the disbelief that a sign would do much to improve the business climate of the center, possible traffic hazards resulting 'from the small lettering on the proposed sign, and the possibility that the merchants in the other half of the commercial area might demand similar. temporary signage because of damage to business perceived from the redevelopment project. Commissioner Bjorklund indicated he .would rather see such signage permitted under a political decision by the Council rather than a precedent-setting decision by the Planning Commission, which they might have to live with for a long time. Commissioner Bowerman questioned why the request had originated with the Council and .tenants and not the center owner (Mr. Saliterman) . There was also concern that, historically, such temporary signage has been almost impossible to get removed or to keep maintained.