PL MINUTES 10031989 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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