Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 02171981 Meeting sneer 100235 VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIIIIII IIII Box: ss Folder: Document: PL MINUTES 02171981 (?D CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 17 , 1981 The meeting was called to order by. Chairman Bjorklund . at 7 :31 P.M. Present for roll call: Peterson, Bjorklund, Sopcinski, Enrooth and Makowske. Absent: Bowerman and Jones. Also present: Ron Berg, Administrative Assistant. The minutes for the Planning Commission meeting January 20th were amended to include the following as Paragraph #8: . "Motion by Mrs. . Makowske and seconded by Mr. Peterson to approve all Commission : action prior to the time there was a quorum present. . Motion carried unanimously. " Motion by Mr. Peterson and seconded by, . Mrs. Makowske to approve the minutes as amended for the Planning Commission meeting held January 20 , 1981. Motion carried unanimously. • Mr. Enrooth will represent the Commission at the next Council meeting February 24, 1981. Mr. Jones arrived at 7 :35 P.M. Mr. Berg reported a $25 application fee had been paid by LaBelle's when they filed their petition for a 175 square foot variance to the City Sign Ordinance requirements which will enable them to utilize the existing 445 square feet.- of the signage which was permitted for ..the Sibley store, previous tenants of the same space in the building at 2500 38th Avenue N.E. These signs on the east. and west side of the building .will .be repainted white with red lettering to identify the store as LaBelle ' s. As he had suggested in his February. 12th memorandum, Mr. Berg said the variance could be justified because the total allowable signage, - of 270 square feet for 53 ,00.0 square feet of floor area is disproportionate to that which would be permitted under the City ordinance for a smaller business operation, especially in view of LaBelle 's willingness to remove the large non-conforming sign and framing on the north side of the building. Jim Lundquist, representing LaBelle 's, saw the removal of that sign as a good tradeoff for the variance, and, if the City permits the east facing sign to be fluorescent-lit only during the store hours , believes the proposed signage will provide sufficient exposure for the store. Mr. Lundquist said his firm had signed a five year, non- renewable lease with the C. G. Rein Company, with the option to -2- renew left with the Apache management firm. but he is certain a new lease can be negotiated if the store does well in that location. He said LaBelle's would be delighted if the renovation of the Apache Mall should .attract a major tenant .such as Target to the shopping center. Mr. Jones welcomed LaBelle's to the City and assured the store 's representative the Commission is willing to assist in any manner they can to keep a stable tenant in that building. He said he hopes this store may prove to be a business incentive .for that area. Motion- by Mr. Sopcinski and seconded by Mrs . Makowske to recommend Council approval of a 175 square foot variance to the City Sign Ordinance requirements which will permit LaBelle 's Catalog and Showroom to .re.tain the . existing 445 square feet .of signage on the . east and west sides of the building at 2500 38th Avenue N.E. for store identification, as proposed, subject to the removal of the existing 60 foot by 12 foot north facing sign and its framing, finding -that .granting the. variance' not only meets all criteria set by. City policy for sign variances but, decreases, the total signage on this building, . a goal of- the Commission for several years . Motion .carried_ unanimously. Craig Morris , owner of the barber shop recently approved for the Hedlund PUD, was present to discuss his proposal for altering the existing free standing sign in front of his shop at 3909 Silver Lake Road by adding a thatched roof - effect at the .top of the sign. He 'said theroof addition .will only add one foot to the sign 's height and he also requested the sign be lit with one fluorescent lamp during the hours the shop is open, 8 :00 P.M. at the latest, twice a week. The scale for his. drawing for the sign was not accurate, Mr. Morris said, but he does not anticipate the lateral spread of the sign to be more than: a foot on each side. No ref- erence to Council action regarding the more than a foot provided between the brick .planter and the .existing sign could be found in the,--..minutes of the meeting when the- sign was accepted but Mr. Jones questioned whether plantings had been permitted and personally "would like to see the sign dropped all the way down to the brick foundation to eliminate any air space" . He said his own experience has been such types of. plantings are not too successful. Mr. Peterson' s recollection was that the Commission .had agreed to leave that point to the discretion .of the' Council who had approved the sign as proposed. Motion by Mrs. Makowske and seconded by Mr. Enrooth to indicate to the Council that .the Commission, recognizing the Morris sign is the only free standing sign permitted the Hedlund PUD, and desiring the best use possible in the interim, recommends Council approval of the proposed. alteration of. the sign as long as the height of the sign (_including berming, sign base, plantingsabove the base, sign area, lighting and roofing) does not exceed the 8 feet maxi- mum established, for the PUD. with the stipulations that the light- ing, as proposed,will be turned off after 8 :00 P.M.; the ends of the gable roof are enclosed and additional vertical corner posts -3- be allowed to strengthen -the sign against .strong. winds, finding that, these proposed alterationswould not seem to -be detrimental , but could enhance the property.. . Before voting, a friendly amend- ment was made by, Mr. Jones and accepted by the maker and second which further stipulates that there shall be' no air- space between the planter and the sign. The amended -motion carried. unanimously. There were five students from an* urban politics class at Bethel '-College present and the problems-.with air space. between foundations and signs were clarified for them. Mr. Lundquist offered..several suggestions during the consideration of the new sign ordinance which followed. He was. sympathetic to the Commission'.s concerns. regarding free standing signs saying he "personally doesn' t like signs but doesn't mind signage on' buildings. " He believed "even- monument signs can get gaudy" . The Commission concurred with his suggestion. that the new ordinance should be published and reaction-.from,.experts sought before. final approval. The secretary left at 10: 00 P'.M. The meeting was recessed -at 10 : 00 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 10 :.05 P.M. • The Commission continued its consideration of the proposed sign ordinance and in particular- that section dealing with free standing signs. Suggestions for change and further research. was noted by Mr. Berg. Motion by Mr. Enrooth: and seconded. by Mr. Sopcinski to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was. adjourned at 10 :48 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Helen Crowe