Laserfiche WebLink
; <br />Planni�ig Commission <br />Platlning Case No. 462�96: Mounds View Square Shopping Center <br />October 9, 1996 <br />Page 3 <br />maintain�d on such street frontage if such additional pedestal sign <br />a} is located on a single pote <br />b} does not exceed twenty eight (28) sqnare feet in an area on any side and does not have more <br />than two (2) sides <br />c) is not more than four feet (4'} in width and seven feet (7'} in height on the sign face, <br />d) is Located at least seven feet {7') above the surface of' the street. In lieu of one additionat <br />pedestal sign, two (2) separate signs may be tocated on the same pole, but such two (2) signs <br />cotnbined shall not exceed, in area or dimensions, the limitations applicable to a single <br />additional pedesta( sign. No pedestal sign shall e so designed as to have both moving parts, <br />and moving or blinking lights. In additior� to the pedestal <br />ihe proposal exceeds the heighi allowance of 35 feet by 40 feet, and the area allowance of <br />340 square by 460 square feet. The main concern of the applicant is that t1�e sign be large <br />enough and high enough to be seen over the bridge. <br />Staff would suggest the applicant consider proposing a structure which would be <br />integrated wiih or better relate to the bridge ramp, and could be located on the east side of <br />the bridge. More discussion wou(d be needed but a"be(1 tower" type siructure is a <br />possibility. This would allow the st;-ucture to be lower and more visible to people <br />traveling on Highway 10. Another possible location coufd be between what appears to be <br />a flagpole and the telephone pole in the photograph used for the visual simulation, or <br />integrated into the new restaurant building which wiil replace Bridgeman's. Staii <br />questions whether it is necessary for the sign to be tall enough to display the tenants <br />names over the bridge, when they do not now have this type of signage, and motorists <br />cannot see the signs on the store fronts until you pass Bnidgeman's now. If only the name <br />of the shopping center were visibie over the bridge, ihe sign could be reduced in height to <br />approximately 55 feet, and require only a 20 foot variance. <br />The applicant has an obvious hardship, and stafffeels there is justifcation for a variance to <br />allow better visibility of signa;e for motorists trave9ing west on I-�ighway 10. Staff is not <br />convinced, however, that the appiicant's proposaf is the orily solution and wouid suggest <br />that some additional ideas be explored. In addition, the Planning Commissioz� may want <br />to obtain some expertise in whether drivers could react to a sign seen after they pass the <br />bridge in suff�cient time to turn into the shopping center. At a minimum, the sign needs to <br />be constructed of materials that relate better to the bricige structure or to the architecture <br />of the center ancf placed so it is not sitiing like an island. <br />�t�if° I2eco�mend�tion: Favorabie to some adjustment in sign allowances to address the <br />possible visual obstruction created by the construction of the bridge. The discussion <br />' session with the Planning Commission, however, will provide a good opportunity to <br />explore some alternatives to the applicant's proposal. The sign needs to better relate to <br />