Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r ;. .: :..." -~ -:.; _: ii ....-. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />The <br />Lincfl1n <br />Companies <br /> <br />...;.; E. !..:;~:t__ .':":': ."'::;,::~' :>;.. <br />\\-..:.::~~;-:.7..;.:.. ~! ~r.:_L'~' ~;. '-,'-.::~: <br /> <br />,':1:2. .: :~,.! till" <br /> <br />October 10, 1989 <br /> <br />Mr. Rick ..Topke <br />City of Rosevill.e <br />26H Civic C:!!nter Drive <br />Ro~evil1e, Minnesota 55113 <br /> <br />RE: "Narrative" for Roseclale Squ3Ie Office Center \'coriance <br />Rosedale Sauare Office Center <br />2803 Lincoln Drive <br />Roseville, ~.~~ 55113 <br /> <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Jopke: <br /> <br />Please fine enclosed a c~);1pl~ted .'\pplication <br />Ordinance for the above Ieferencad project. <br />order. <br /> <br />fer Variance to Zoning <br />I trust everything is in <br /> <br />Th", enclosed documents c"tline our request to h~ve the currer.t City <br />Ordbance !'etback of forty f~et (40') from prop~rty line cl-}angeci to one <br />foot 0') irom property line. A physical inspection or perusl.la! of the <br />site plan enclosed W1Jl show that the forty foot (40') setback would <br />position the sign such U....t it '^-ill not b~ able to be identified by <br />motoris~s along Lincoln Drive and Terrace Drive. It is our r~quest to <br />have th.: sign positioned so that the building anc its' tenants are allowed <br />proper identification. .<1S you will r,ote in our application for permit and <br />the dra'l'<ings enclosed, the monument sign meets all City Zoning <br />Ordi..ances in respect to size and height. <br /> <br />Vc.)..t" fJ,l"vf'c;A.'i i ~~:-.d': ::.s : ~:::.::..::: ;?;:.;~,:,;:.:~::-:!.~~!~. ~'('~~i:~_r +hT"PP f~t"'"'t (23') from <br />the 1 e:-race Drive curb line and for~y ftC'et (401) from the Uncoln Drive <br />curb line. As such, the current setback requirement wodd put the sig'n <br />approximatcly eighty feet (80') from the curb line, far to(l great a <br />distance for eff'~ctive id('ntification. iI'jth the one loot (1') setback <br />request, (11:1' sign will still be approximately tv.-cr.t)' foul' feet (24') and <br />forty one f~.;:t (41') frop.: the respective ct:rb Jines. This setback request <br />wm not, in any way, re~tl"ict l.h~ vic;ion of ~rafiic travelling on either <br />of th~ cross streets. This setbacic 1_" tlest wi1', also be si;;.ilQr to that <br />allowec: lor the retail development across "lerra:e Dri"e, aHowing for <br />contim:ity to the over-a]] deve}opT:1ent. <br />