CC PACKET 09272011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 16, 2003 Page 4 1 Susan Hall stated that on August 19, 2003 the Planning Commission held the initial public 2 hearing for the St. Anthony Shopping Center, LLC Comprehensive Sign Plan amendment 3 request and that on August 26, 2003 the City Council referred the issue back to the Planning 4 Commission for further evaluation. She explained that the Council felt that it did not match the 5 intention and that they would like a more consistent look to the original sign plan. 7 Jim Crockrow, Co -Owner -St. Anthony Shopping Center, LLC, stated that the owners of the 8 businesses, Subway and Bumper to Bumper, and Dan Lee were available for questions. He 9 stated that they understand City Council's request to review and modify the original request, 10 noting that the Planning Commission recommended approval at the August 2003 meeting. He 11 asked the Planning Commission for their assistance in determining what should be sent back to 12 Council. He stated that they could continue to table the amendment request to work further on 13 the design criteria and suggested that the two tenants.in question, Subway and Bumper to 14 Bumper, could request a variance for their sign designs. He explained that both tenants are 15 known nationwide and that the signs are very important to their recognition. He reviewed the 16 signage with the Commission stating that they would like to give their national tenants the 17 consistency that is known nationwide. He stated that as owners, they would like to modify the 18 sign criteria so that they would be able to attract and bring in more national tenants. He stated 19 that this would provide better services to the residents. 20 21 Mr. Crockrow explained that the shopping center sign criteria is old and should be updated. The 22 Commission agreed that the sign criteria should be revised for both current and future tenants. 23 Everyone agreed that they want to attract national tenants noting that they do not object to the 24 national sign criteria. The Commission agreed that they would like to be able to consider 25 something newer and more modern to the times. 26 27 Mr. Crockrow stated that presently it is very difficult to determine where a specific tenant is 28 located in the center because all of the signs look the same. The Commission agreed that the 29 sign criteria should be revised adding that it would be an improvement for both the tenants and 30 the City. 31 32 Chair Melsha stated that he would prefer an approach with non -variance criteria. He noted that 33 one of the Council members suggested a more stylized sign with individualized lettering and/or a 34 smaller logo sign. He noted that the Council has stated that the signage be more consistent with 35 the shopping center. 36 37 Owner of Bumper to Bumper provided the Commission with air example of the current sign that 38 is used nationwide. He explained that the logo is very important. He reviewed the size and 39 coloring with the Commission and emphasized that they need to include the two logos on the 40 sign. Chair Melsha stated that they could have a logo as long as it is a consistent. 41 42 Mr. Crockrow clarified that what the Planning Commission recommended for approval was sent 43 to the City Council for review. Chair Melsha confirmed that it was. 44 NN