12-18-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 Regular Meeting Page 6 Director Sheldon explained that the second part of the request pertained to the signage for Mounds View Square Shopping Center, and that the proposal has been changed by the applicant. The original proposal was for a 75 foot high, 800 square foot sign. The Planning Commission had requested information on how much of the sign would show above the bridge. She reported on a study conducted by the City Engineer which estimated that the bridge would cover up 52 feet of the sign, when viewed from a distance representing 10 seconds of travel time at 50 mph on Highway 10, east of the sign. If the sign were 75 feet high, then 23 feet would show above the bridge. She explained that the applicant is now proposing a sign which would be 50 feet high, and have 430 square feet of sign area. Signs at the other shopping centers owned by the applicant (Mendota Plaza, Crystal Center, and Northway Center) were reviewed. The sign at Mendota Plaza was the same as the one requested by the applicant for Mounds View Square. Director Sheldon explained that once you lower the sign, even to 50 feet, you cannot see it over the bridge, so from staffs perspective, you have lost the connection between the bridge and the need for a variance. She suggested several ways to address this issue: 1) amending the Code, 2) a variance request for monument signage at the driveway entrances and at Long Lake Road, 3) reducing the pylon sign to fit within the current code, • 4) add a procedure for approving "sign programs or packages" to the City's code which would allow customized sign regulations for the larger shopping centers in Mounds View, 5) grant a variance for a "floating box" of signage from the top of the bridge railing to 75 feet, with a condition that the variance could not be used unless the bridge is built and the City has six months in which to update its Sign Code. If the Sign Code is amended to allow a sign program, then the applicant could not use the "floating box". Director Sheldon suggested that the Commission table this item until a firmer proposal is made and more information is obtained from the applicant. Commissioner Brasaemle wanted to make it clear that this variance request is contingent upon the bridge being built and whatever variance is passed by the Commission needs to have this clause in it. JoAnn Colleen, 2617 County Road 1, asked why the parking and signs are being dealt with now if we don't even know if the bridge of the dinner house restaurants will be built. It was explained that before the applicant even considers building the restaurants, they would need to know if adequate parking is available to inform future tenants and it is only the sign request that is related to the construction of the bridge. It was added that it was easier to come to the Planning Commission with both of these items at once. Ms. Colleen expressed . her concern about the construction of a lighted sign and the view from her window. She also expressed concern with other businesses wanting taller signs.