My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1987_0713_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1987
>
1987_0713_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2011 9:18:48 AM
Creation date
12/7/2011 9:14:42 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
132
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
PLANNING REPORT <br />DATE: <br />CASE NUMBER: <br />APPLICANT: <br />LOCATION: <br />ACTION REQUESTED: <br />PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: <br />I July 1987 <br />1773 <br />John C. Ericson <br />North of Larpenteur, Westerly <br />of Fernwood (see sketch) <br />Approval of Variance to Sign <br />Location <br />1. John Ericson <br />is the owner and operator of the Gold <br />Eagle Laundry <br />Service at <br />1233 West Larpenteur Avenue, just <br />westerly of the <br />SuperAmerica <br />station at the northwest corner <br />of <br />Fernwood - and <br />Larpenteur. <br />There is an existing nonconforming roof <br />sign <br />on the top of <br />his building which he estimates to be approximately <br />10 x <br />15 feet. He <br />proposes to remove that sign and replace it with a <br />new <br />pylon sign in <br />the island in <br />the front of his building. <br />2. The Roseville Code since 1959 does not allow roof signs. We have <br />researched this sign and find that it was built prior to that time. <br />Thus, a land owner has the right to continue the use of that sign and <br />maintain it literally forever. The sign is in need of repainting and <br />repair, and Mr. Ericson proposes to take it down and replace it with a <br />pylon sign which would be 1016" x 716" which equals 85.75 square feet. <br />The sign size allowed for a pylon for this property at this location is <br />100 square feet. <br />3. The drawing indicates the <br />height of the sign to be <br />191611 whereas <br />25 <br />feet maximum is allowed. <br />We have discussed with <br />Mr. Ericson <br />the <br />possibility of raising the sign 2 feet in order to have 14 feet under <br />the <br />sign since a portion of it <br />will be extending over the <br />driveway on <br />his <br />property. This will allow <br />for truck clearance and is, <br />in fact, required <br />by the Roseville sign ordinance where signs extend over <br />driveways. <br />4. The problem with the proposal is that placing the sign 30 feet back <br />would be very difficult due to the existing location of the building, <br />drives, and parking areas. It would appear that the best that can be <br />done is to place it in the island as indicated on the attached drawing <br />of the property. This would place the south edge of the sign 7 feet <br />from the property line. Though this is a substantial reduction from the <br />30 foot required, aesthetically the result may be far better than that of <br />,continuing the nonconforming sign on the roof. In discussing this <br />proposal with the staff, Mr. Ericson has agreed to install concrete curb <br />around the island in an attempt to increase the aesthetic conditions of <br />the front of his property. Thus, in accordance with Mr. Ericson's <br />statement which is attached (dated June 9, 1987), this proposal may be <br />attached as a condition to the approval of this variance. The variance <br />from 30 feet to 7 feet equals 76.6%. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.