My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1998_0413_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1998
>
1998_0413_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/7/2011 3:12:42 PM
Creation date
10/7/2011 3:03:04 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br /> DATE: 4/13/98 <br /> ITEM NO: <br /> artrpent Approval: Ma er proved: Agenda Section: <br /> LAND USE <br /> It Description: Clarification of Conditional Use Permit Language for Franchise <br /> Associates, Inc. (Arby's/Sbarro) Regarding the Existing Pylon Sign <br /> 1,0 REQUESTED ACTION <br /> 1.1 The Community Development Director is requesting clarification of the conditional <br /> use permit language for Franchise Associates (Arby's/sbarro) regarding the use of <br /> the existing pylon sign. When the City Council granted a conditional use permit to <br /> Franchise Associates, Inc. on January 26, 1998, it was not clear whether the <br /> Council intended to allow the applicant to use the existing pylon sign if it were <br /> moved back to the required setback and lowered, or if the sign had to be replaced <br /> in order to bring the area of the sign into conformance with the City's sign <br /> regulations. <br /> 2.0 BACKGROUND <br /> 2.1 On January 26, 1998, the City Council granted a conditional use permit to Franchise <br /> Associates to allow the construction of a new Arby's/Sbarro restaurant at 2105 <br /> Snelling Avenue North (Resolution 9517). Condition 6 of the CUP states: <br /> 6. All signage for the project must comply with the current requirements of <br /> Section 1009 of the City Code, including the size and location of wall signs <br /> and directional signs. <br /> 2.2 The existing pylon sign does not meet the City's height, area, and setback <br /> requirements. At the January 28, 1998, City Council meeting, it was unclear if the <br /> existing sign could be lowered and moved back an the site as proposed by <br /> Franchise Associates, or if the sign had to be replaced with a sign which met the <br /> area requirement as well. <br /> 2.3 The City has received a letter from Bruce Malkerson, an attorney for Franchise <br /> Associates, Inc., presenting a legal argument why the language of condition 6 <br /> should be amended to read: <br /> 6. All signage for the project must comply with the current requirements of <br /> Section 1009 of the City Code, including the size and location of wall signs <br /> and directional signs. The foregoing language apip ignage but <br /> lies to new s' <br /> not to the existing non-conforming free-standing sign, which may continue <br /> Dursuant to the terms and conditions of the City's sign ordinance. <br /> PF#2977-RCA(04/13/98)- Page 1 of 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.