Laserfiche WebLink
<br />22 <br /> <br />the color scheme would be determined by each tenant. <br /> <br />DeBenedet inquired to whether the screening issues brought up in <br />the previous approval have been resolved. Van Ornum indicated <br />that Jeff Kast from Kraus Anderson has been working on that <br />issue, and believed that it would be resolved shortly. <br /> <br />DeBenedet inquired if staff was satisfied with the solution. <br />Janisch indicated that staff had not heard anything yet. <br />DeBenedet inquired aoout whether there would be sidewalk <br />provided. Janisch indicated that there would be sidewalk <br />provided on the south side. DeBenedet indicated a concern about <br />whether roof drains would drain on to the sidewalk. Janisch <br />indicated that staff would look at the plans with the building <br />official and deal with that problem. <br /> <br />Stokes inquired if the location of the site on a service road <br />rather than on Snelling Avenue itself, reduces the allowable size <br />of the sign. Stokes indicated his concern because that area is <br />beginning to look like south Robert Street, and it's appearance <br />is declining because of the proliferation of signs. <br /> <br />Johnson indicated that the sign appeared to line up with other <br />signs in the area. Stokes stated that plastic signs were <br />becoming a problem. <br /> <br />Berry inquired about whether the banner in front of the building <br />has been taken down. Van Ornum replied that it was taken down. <br />Johnson indicated that there is a problem city wide with banners. <br /> <br />DeBenedet inquired if the sign on the building will remain. Van <br />Ornum replied that it would. DeBenedet indicated that he felt <br />that the signage on the building was sufficient. Johnson replied <br />that the pylon sign is so that you can see it down the road. Van <br />Ornum indicated that their proposed sign is consistent with <br />others in the area. <br /> <br />Boots Halverson inquired about where the property line was, and <br />it appeared that MacDonalds sign would be back further than this <br />proposed sign. Halverson indicated a concern that this proposed <br />sign might block the visibility of their sign, but if they lined <br />up, the location would be okay. <br /> <br />Van Ornum inquired to what point is the sign setback is measured. <br />Dahlgren responded that the measurement is to the nearest point <br />of the sign, and not to the pole. Dahlgren indicated that all <br />signs in the area were non-conforming, but that the intent was to <br />have signs generally line up. <br /> <br />Berry moved, Goedeke seconded that the Planning Commission <br />recommend approval of the variance to allow a sign with a 16 ft. <br />set back at 2057 and 2059 Snelling Avenue with the following <br />