My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_880203
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1988
>
pm_880203
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:52 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/3/1988
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
<br />21 <br /> <br />as submitted and dated 12/31/87. <br /> <br />2. Curbing for all access drives and all parking areas is <br />to be provided. <br /> <br />3. Emergency vehicle access be provided as proposed on the <br />east side of this site, subject to review and approval <br />by the City fire marshall of all access drives to the <br />site. <br /> <br />4. Appropriate easements be provided for all utilities. <br /> <br />5. Final eng inee ring and landscape details are subject <br />approval. <br /> <br />6. Architectural design of the buildings and garages be <br />consistent with the plans submitted. <br /> <br />7. Water line and hydrant location are subject to final <br />approval by fire marshal, and that additional lines and <br />hydrants be provided as required. <br /> <br />Roll Call: Ayes: <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />Stokes, Miller, Goedeke, Berry, ~laschka, <br />DeBenedet, Johnson <br />None <br /> <br />Plannin~ File 1821 <br /> <br />Capp Industries request for a variance to sign setback <br />requirements at 2057 and 2059 Snelling Avenue. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Dahlgren summarized the location and history of the site. <br />Dahlgren indicated the normally two signs would be allowed on the <br />site, which could be 175 sq. ft. and 30 ft. high. The applicant <br />is proposing a 100 sq. ft. sign. Dahlgren indicated that there <br />is no sign now, and no location which could meet the 30 ft. set <br />back requirements for signs. Dahlgren indicated that the <br />proposed sign would be 8 x 12 and would be located 6 ft. from the <br />building and 16 ft. from the property line. <br /> <br />Van Ornum indicated that the sign would be a nice sign, and that <br />it would only be 96 sq. ft. and would fit in nicely with the <br />location of other signs in the area. Van Ornum indicated that <br />there were other signs in the area which were located closer to <br />the right of way than they would be. Johnson inquired about <br />whether the sign would be lighted. Van Ornum responded, yes, it <br />would. <br /> <br />Johnson inquired about what the color of the sign would be. Van <br />Ornum responded that it would be a two tenant building, and that <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.