Laserfiche WebLink
<br />---, ~ <br />.". , <br /> <br /> <br />INCORPORATED <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />CONSULTING PLANNERS <br />LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS <br /> <br />300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH <br />SUITE 210 <br />MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 <br />612,339,3300 <br /> <br />DATE: 13 August 1990 <br />TO: Craig Waldron <br />FROM: John Shardlow, AICP <br /> <br />RE: Review of Olive Garden Restaurant Sign Proposal <br /> <br />The City Council's approval of the Olive Garden Special Use Permit was conditioned on <br />the applicants rettirJ1jng to the council with the specific detail of their sign. Although I <br />was not present at theimeeting, I understand that there was discussion about the <br />possibility of utilizing ~Imonument sign, as opposed to a pylon sign at this site, <br /> <br />Todd Baldwin, representiIlg Olive Garden, attended a planning office hours appointment last <br />Wednesday and presented their proposed sign. They are proposing to install a pylon sign in <br />a location that conforms to the required setbacks. The detail that we reviewed also <br />contained less sign area than the ordinance allows, In summary, their proposed sign <br />conforms in all respects with City Code. <br /> <br />I also received a phone call last week from a representative of Fine Associates, the <br />underlying fee owner of the property and the developers of this over all project. Fine <br />Associates was not opposed to a monument sign on the Olive Garden site, if the owners <br />decided to install one, provided that it could be demonstrated that such a sign would not <br />obstruct the visibility of their last remaining lot. They did, however, want to be clear in <br />stating that they did not want to be limited to a monument sign on their final lot. They <br />argued that these were the last two parcels to develop in the project, and all of the <br />other lots either had a pylon or were approved for a pylon sign and had not installed one, <br /> <br />I had occasion to drive past the Olive Garden in Bloomington and I offer the following <br />comments for your consideration. First, this was an existing monument sign constructed by <br />the previous occupants, Victoria Station. The design of this type of monument sign really <br />offers the worst of both pylons and monuments because it is so large, When we recently <br />rewrote the BurnsviIle Sign Code, we offered setback incentives if applicants would install <br />monument signs, but these were low, horizontal signs, surrounded by landscaping. Without <br />some control over the height of monument signs (substantially less then pylons), there is an <br />actual disadvantage presented since they block all of the visibility that is afforded beneath <br />the sign face on pylons. <br />