Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 <br /> ID Regular Meeting Page 10 <br /> Commission that the applicant is now <br /> proposing monument signage and a 50' high, <br /> 430 square foot identification sign. Signs <br /> existing at the Mendota and Crystal centers <br /> were reviewed and were noted to be similar to <br /> the request being made by the applicant. <br /> Director Sheldon went on to explain that once <br /> you lower the sign, even to 50 feet, you cannot <br /> see it over the bridge, so from Staffs <br /> perspective, you have started to lose the <br /> connection between the bridge and the need <br /> for a variance. She expressed a concern that <br /> granting a variance for a sign of this size would <br /> set a precedent, and lead to other shopping <br /> centers requesting this type of signage whether <br /> there is a bridge or not. She suggested a <br /> couple of possible ways to address this issue: <br /> S one being to amend our sign regulations to <br /> recognize that a shopping center of this size <br /> may need more signage than we allow; the <br /> other being, the applicant could request a <br /> variance for the monument signage at the <br /> driveway entrances based on the impact of the <br /> bridge, and have a pylon sign of a size that <br /> meets the City's code. She explained that <br /> another possibility could be to amend our Code <br /> to allow for a "sign package" which would allow <br /> the shopping center customized sign <br /> regulations which would need to be approved <br /> by the Planning Commission. She further <br /> explained that another possibility would be to <br /> grant a "floating box" of signage from the top of <br /> the railing up to the 75 feet, with a condition on <br /> the variance that the bridge must be built and <br /> the City have six months in which to update our <br /> sign regulations. If the Sign Code is changed <br /> to allow the signage, the "floating box" could <br /> not be used. Director Sheldon suggested that <br /> perhaps the Planning Commission could table <br /> • this item until a firmer proposal is made and <br /> more information is obtained from the applicant. <br />