Laserfiche WebLink
7 <br /> specifications would include rear signs , also. Chair Madden <br /> commented that the rear signage had been discussed as a separate <br /> issue . <br /> Commissioner Hansen expressed his concern that the integrity of the <br /> shopping center signage was being challenged so soon after the <br /> specifications had been put in place . He then asked what options <br /> exist if the Commission were to recommend denial of the sign variance <br /> based upon its non-conformance with signage specifications. Mr. <br /> Armstead and Mr. Johnson both described the signage as a lettering on <br /> a canopy over the drive-through which will be illuminated from the <br /> inside , and Mr . Johnson explained that individually illuminated <br /> letters such as those on the shopping center storefronts would not <br /> work on the proposed canopy.. Mr. Armstead emphasized the importance <br /> of protective canopy over the drive-through . Commissioner Hansen <br /> stated that, aside from considerations of square footage and a second <br /> sign variance, the Commission was first interested in knowing what <br /> the sign would look like . He pointed out that other retailers in the <br /> shopping center had agreed to conform to the signage specifications <br /> even though they originally wanted to use non-conforming signs . <br /> Joseph DiSanto of Victoria Management Company addressed the question, <br /> first reiterating his company ' s continuing commitment to the shopping <br /> center ' s success . Mr. DiSanto stated that extending the fascia is <br /> not a consideration because of the expense involved and because a <br /> different tenant identity is needed for Clark ' s . Mr. DiSanto <br /> explained that the fascia was extended around the side of the <br /> Hennepin County Library only because a blank wall faced Kenzie <br /> Terrace. <br /> Commissioner Franzese asked Mr . DiSanto to speculate on the reaction <br /> of other tenants who were not allowed to use their company logos when <br /> they learn that an exception has been made for Clark ' s . Mr . DiSanto <br /> replied that it is difficult to dissuade a regional operator from <br /> using its logo. Additionally, he expressed the view that the <br /> proposed Clark ' s logo would not detract from the rest of the shopping <br /> center but would merely set off the Clark ' s restaurant . He further <br /> explained that the intent of the signage specifications agreed to by <br /> Victoria was to install matching signage along the storefronts but <br /> not necessarily along the sides . He apologized to the Commission for <br /> any inadvertent error or omission on his part wick led them to <br /> believe that anything but storefront signage was meant to conform to <br /> the specifications . <br /> Chair Madden noted that two exceptions to the signage specifications <br /> already exist; namely, the Dairy Queen and the Montessori school . He <br /> stated that he is troubled by those two exceptions and is reluctanat <br /> to add a third. Mr. DiSanto disagreed - with Chair Madden' s assessment <br /> of the non-conforming signs and commented that it would be extremely <br /> unfortunate to lose a .potential tenant because of a signage dispute. <br />