CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Steven Ellis | 5/20/2009 1:21:21 PM |
| If this is an off premise sign then the variance should be from AMC 21.47.070 Prohibited Signs not AMC 21.47.050. | |
| Kimberly Olmsted | 5/20/2009 9:45:48 AM |
| It's difficult to make an informed response without seeing the design of the sign. A flashing neon sign would not be welcomed in this area. A beautifully crafted low to the ground sign, lit from below, would fit better with the rural feel of the area plus it would align better with the exterior details of the building. I appreciate that this project is taking a certain amount of care with the exterior finishes of the building. This could have been a huge building using cheap materials and an even cheaper design. If a sign is to be built, let it be a model for excellent signage,not an eyesore. That said, however,if the above statements are true, I do not appreciate the fact that the off-site sign was not part of the original approved plans and I would not approve a variance of the signage zoning. | |
| Robert McClung | 5/20/2009 8:10:30 AM |
| The University Area Ccommunity Council supported the university and the corportion to facilitate the training of students in hotel management. We were briefed by Dowl HKM several times and no mention was made of a sign or request there of. Variance should not be approved. The organizations did not request the sign during the initial briefings nor has subsequently requested an audience with the UACC. | |
| Margaret Kugel | 5/19/2009 2:05:08 PM |
| I am opposed to the variance. This is not a commercial area. I don't know how the motel was allowed to be built there in the first place. It doesn't fit in with the surrounding land uses. Its impact on the neighborhood should be kept to a minimum. A variance for a lighted off-site sign is not the way to do that. | |
| Susan Klein | 5/19/2009 10:42:51 AM |
| Nana and APU developed this motel with the current sign ordinance and did not mention wanting this in any community council meetings. I oppose an off-site sign as it will change the character of this mostly undeveloped corner. In addition, my understanding of the purpose of the motel/hotel was to cater to the university and medical patients and visitors. When they make reservations they should be given maps to the location. We do not need another lighted sign district in Anchorage. Keep this area rural-feeling. | |
| Tom Bronga | 5/19/2009 7:30:15 AM |
| This hotel is already an eyesore of the University Lake Area. It is too close to the muni park land and trail. It should never have been allowed. The variance for a sign should also be denied. There are no other lighted signs in this area. It does not fit into the existing community surroundings. | |
| Karen Bronga | 5/19/2009 7:24:56 AM |
| I am not in favor of a lighted sign for this motel. It's already an unfortunate scar on a beautiful lake. Let's not add to the eyesore. | |