PL MINUTES 06171997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes June 17, 1997 Page 11 1 Mr. Bob Bruber, Scenic Sign Corp., stated they were asking for the minimum necessary to be 2 visible. They are requesting 18 inch letters which will be mounted on a metal raceway which 3 will protrude six inches. 4 Commissioner Franzese asked if Ames Photo or Video Update would be requesting signage 5 on the back of the building. 6 Mr. Bruber stated he did not do their work. He noted they do have signs on the side of the 7 building as well as the front. Great Clips does not have that option as they are the middle 8 tenant. 9 Commissioner Makowske noted that in order to grant the variance, a hardship must be shown 10 and it must be unique to this property. He questioned what was different about this business 11 than businesses located in the St. Anthony Shopping Center. 12 Mr. Bruber stated that the hardship is that they are the middle tenant and are not allowed 13 signage on the end of the building. 14 Commissioner Franzese noted a difference between this and the St. Anthony Shopping Center 15 was that the St. Anthony Shopping Center has a sign package for the whole shopping center. 06 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 8:41 P.M. 17 Chair Bergstrom stated he understood the desire for the signage and felt it was well done but 18 he was concerned that granting this variance would set a precedent. He also stated his 19 concern that all the initial applications regarding signage at Apache Plaza have gone well 20 beyond.the initial requests. 21 Commissioner Gondorchin noted the Great Clips facility is very small and hard to detect. He 22 noted the configuration of the store, the way it faced and the proximity to Apache Plaza made 23 it a unique situation. For this reason, he was in favor of the request. 24 Motion by Commissioner Makowske to recommend to the City Council that the request for 25 the sign variance for an additional wall sign on the west elevation for Great Clips, 2902 Silver 26 Lake Road, be denied based on the following: 27 1. This particular location while it may have some unique characteristics, does not appear 28 to be sufficiently unique compared to other areas of the cities which may have the 29 same difficulty; and, 30 2. The hardship appears to be more of an inconvenience which could possibly be 31 alleviated with the use of a monument sign or other type of sign in the front of the 32 building. 3 The motion failed for lack of a second.