Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />Page# 6 <br /> <br />Wednesday, December 6, 1989 <br /> <br />Dahlgren summarized the site location and the proposed variance <br />request. Dahlgren pointed out that there appeared to be no clear <br />reason why the sign had to be closer to the right-of-way. <br /> <br />Keel stated that there were no Engineering concerns on this <br />proposal. <br /> <br />Matt Rieger pointed out that the sign is necessary to <br />other tenants in the building besides Edina Realty. <br />pointed out that the readability of the sign is enhanced <br />in front of the landscaping because it could be hidden <br />it was located behind the landscaping area. <br /> <br />identify <br />Rieger <br />by being <br />later if <br /> <br />Rick stewart summarized the proposed location of the sign and its <br />relationship to adjacent streets. stewart pointed out that this <br />would be a low monument sign and not a pylon sign. stewart added <br />that the sign location would conform and be similar to other <br />signs in the area. Dahlgren replied that he had reviewed the <br />existing sign across the street and concluded that it was setback <br />30 feet from the right-of-way as required. Dahlgren also stated <br />that because it is an L-shaped sign, that both faces of the sign <br />would have to be counted in the sign area. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that it may be appropriate to continue this matter <br />to allow the applicant to look at alternative locations for the <br />sign. Rieger replied that they had reconsidered the sign <br />location and moved it back already. <br /> <br />Johnson questioned what the hardship was that would justify the <br />variance. <br /> <br />DeBenedet stated that it maybe time for the Planning Commission <br />to take a look at the parking lot and sign setback requirements <br />and to determine if any ordinance changes would be necessary. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that it is important that the sign locations work <br />for all parties. <br /> <br />stewart questioned if the sign lined up with the other sign if it <br />were to be OK'd. Dahlgren replied that the sign should be <br />located 30 feet from both streets { and if that is a problem, a <br />variance could be considered. Dahlgren added that a angle sign <br />may be better than the proposed L-shaped sign. <br /> <br />Goedeke moved and wietecki seconded to continue consideration on <br />this matter for 30 days to allow the applicant to look at <br />alternative sign locations. <br />