My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_880406
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1988
>
pm_880406
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:53 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
4/6/1988
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.
/
16
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 />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />page#15 <br /> <br />Wednesday, April 6, 1988 <br /> <br />5. That the general PUD sign be placed on the easterly <br />side of the northerly entrance of the frontage road, <br />and be set back 20 feet from the right of way. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: DeBenedet, Berry, Goedeke, Maschka, <br />Moeller, Johnson <br />Nays: None <br />Abstain: Stokes <br /> <br />Planninq File 1833 <br /> <br />Brannon request for a sign set back variance at 1315 West <br />Larpenteur Avenue. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Dahlgren summarized the proposed and alternate sign location and <br />stated that the proposed location is an acceptable alternative. <br />Johnson questioned whether the sign would be lit, and what the <br />colors of the sign would be. <br /> <br />Dorothy Brannon responded that the sign would be white with black <br />letters. Dorothy Brannon said that the proposed location was the <br />best location because of alternative locations would not be <br />visible or would result in the loss of parking stalls. Rodney <br />Brannon testified that they were proposing to change the sign <br />from 7x10 to 8x10 while the proposed 16 ft. height would remain <br />the same. This change was necessary to provide additional tenant <br />signs. Brannon pointed out that there would be roughsawn cedar <br />on the sign, and that there would be no signage on the building. <br /> <br />DeBenedet inquired if the sign could be moved back and what will <br />the changeable message portion of the sign be used for. Brannon <br />responded that they couldn't move the sign back because they <br />would lose parking spaces and that the changeable message sign <br />would be used to advertise various specials. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Goedeke moved, Moeller seconded to approve a sign set back <br />variance of 10 feet with the following conditions: <br /> <br />1. That the sign be limited to 80 sq. ft. in area. <br /> <br />2. Maximum height of the sign be 16 ft. <br /> <br />3. That there be no signs on the building. <br /> <br />4. That the sign be constructed as per the plans submitted <br />to the Planning Commission on April 6, 1988. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.