1995-01-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . January 25, 1995 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 Goldman stated that when the development of what is now the Grandpa's complex was first approved in 1969 under Conditional Use Permit No. 120, one of the conditions of the use permit limited identification signing to a single free-standing sign. This condition has been amended four times to allow identification signs related to changing tenants in the complex. Each of the amendments was specific to the sign requested by the applicant. This application proposes to replace the existing free standing "Grandpa's" identification sign with a new sign that identifies the two major businesses in the complex. The provisions of the sign code are adequate to govern signs in this complex and no purpose is being served by having a more restrictive regulation for identification signs. The Conditional Use Permit issued to Target Stores, Inc., on October 6, 1969 and all amendments thereto should be amended by replacing all conditions that relate to signs with a requirement that all signs on the premises shall conform in all respects with provisions of the sign regulations contained in the University City Zoning Code. Chairperson Marsh opened the public hearing and asked for testimony from the public. Robert Atchison, 8009 Noel Ct., stated that he is opposed to the sign and any amendments to the Conditional Use Permit because the store does not hire union workers. Dorothy Dunbar, 7947 Glenside Place, stated that she adjoins the property in the rear and is happy to know that the sign will not increase in size. She is bothered by Mr. Goldman's proposal because it may lead to more signage than is already there since they may not have used up all of the signage permitted by the Code. She is concerned with how the signage along Olive affects property values. She would prefer that all signs be reviewed by the Plan Commission and the City Council. Tom Willey, 1279 Walnut Trail Ct., stated that he is a friend of the previous speaker, Mr. Atchison and feels that the store should not be given an easier path to get around any laws. No other members of the public indicated a desire to speak, so the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Mr. Solodar stated that if they are worried about proliferations of signs perhaps the Plan Commission should review each sign for this business. Mr. Goldman stated that if there are problems with signage then the Zoning Code revision is the place to take care of them not by addressing one specific business. Mr. Marsh stated that singling one specific business along Olive is not fair treatment to that business when all other businesses are treated with different standards. Ms. Ratner stated that all businesses in the City have the right to advertise and that is covered by the Code. She feels that University City has an excellent sign code and because of that the streets in University City look relatively nice. Holding this business to different standards than all other businesses along Olive and reviewing each sign for each tenant is redundant and discriminatory. If their signage meets the requirements of the code they should not have to come before this commission or the City Council again. Therefore, she will vote to have the m-1-2S.plc