pf_02071 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

i~ ,.~ :-~i. '1f'\\.....~//}., TtJ1J1@'.,...i....... ..' ...............'.IDJ~i.Q............. i,..............~,~.'i....."..... '.... ~; ~Do~ INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 612,339,3300 DATE: 13 August 1990 TO: Craig Waldron FROM: John Shardlow, AICP RE: Review of Olive Garden Restaurant Sign Proposal The City Council's approval of the Olive Garden Special Use Permit was conditioned on the applicants returning to the council with the specific detail of their sign. Although I was not present at the meeting, I understand that there was discussion about the possibility of utilizing a monument sign, as opposed to a pylon sign at this site, Todd Baldwin, representing Olive Garden, attended a planning office hours appointment last Wednesday and presented their proposed sign. They are proposing to install a pylon sign in a location that conforms to the required setbacks. The detail that we reviewed also contained less sign area than the ordinance allows. In summary, their proposed sign conforms in all respects with City Code. I also received a phone call last week from a representative of Fine Associates, the underlying fee owner of the property and the developers of this over all project. Fine Associates was not opposed to a monument sign on the Olive Garden site, if the owners decided to install one, provided that it could be demonstrated that such a sign would not obstruct the visibility of their last remaining lot. They did, however, want to be clear in stating that they did not want to be limited to a monument sign on their final lot. They argued that these were the last two parcels to develop in the project, and all of the other lots either had a pylon or were approved for a pylon sign and had not installed one, I had occasion to drive past the Olive Garden in Bloomington and I offer the following comments for your consideration. First, this was an existing monument sign constructed by the previous occupants, Victoria Station. The design of this type of monument sign really offers the worst of both pylons and monuments because it is so large. When we recently rewrote the Burnsville Sign Code, we offered setback incentives if applicants would install monument signs, but these were low, horizontal signs, surrounded by landscaping. Without some control over the height of monumen t signs (substantially less then pylons), there is an actual disadvantage presented since they block all of the visibility that is afforded beneath the sign face on pylons.