10-09-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • Planning Commission Planning Case No. 462-96: Mounds View Square Shopping Center October 9, 1996 Page 3 maintained on such street frontage if such additional pedestal sign a) is located on a single pole b) does not exceed twenty eight(28)square feet in an area on any side and does not have more than two(2)sides c) is not more than four feet(4')in width and seven feet(7')in height on the sign face, d) is located at least seven feet(7')above the surface of the street. In lieu of one additional pedestal sign,two(2)separate signs may be located on the same pole,but such two(2)signs combined shall not exceed,in area or dimensions,the limitations applicable to a single additional pedestal sign. No pedestal sign shall e so designed as to have both moving parts, and moving or blinking lights. In addition to the pedestal The proposal exceeds the height allowance of 35 feet by 40 feet, and the area allowance of 340 square by 460 square feet. The main concern of the applicant is that the sign be large enough and high enough to be seen over the bridge. Staff would suggest the applicant consider proposing a structure which would be integrated with or better relate to the bridge ramp, and could be located on the east side of • the bridge. More discussion would be needed but a"bell tower" type structure is a possibility. This would allow the structure to be lower and more visible to people traveling on Highway 10. Another possible location could be between what appears to be a flagpole and the telephone pole in the photograph used for the visual simulation, or integrated into the new restaurant building which will replace Bridgeman's. Staff questions whether it is necessary for the sign to be tall enough to display the tenants names over the bridge, when they do not now have this type of signage, and motorists cannot see the signs on the store fronts until you pass Bridgeman's now. If only the name of the shopping center were visible over the bridge, the sign could be reduced in height to approximately 55 feet, and require only a 20 foot variance. The applicant has an obvious hardship, and staff feels there is justification for a variance to allow better visibility of signage for motorists traveling west on Highway 10. Staff is not convinced, however, that the applicant's proposal is the only solution and would suggest that some additional ideas be explored. In addition, the Planning Commission may want to obtain some expertise in whether drivers could react to a sign seen after they pass the bridge in sufficient time to turn into the shopping center. At a minimum, the sign needs to be constructed of materials that relate better to the bridge structure or to the architecture of the center and placed so it is not sitting like an island. Staff Recommendation: Favorable to some adjustment in sign allowances to address the possible visual obstruction created by the construction of the bridge. The discussion session with the Planning Commission, however, will provide a good opportunity to explore some alternatives to the applicant's proposal. The sign needs to better relate to