My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_900606
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1990
>
pm_900606
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:23 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
6/6/1990
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.
/
21
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#18 <br /> <br />Wednesday, June 6, 1990 <br /> <br />City of Roseville request for a variance to sign setback <br />requirements for a sign at Central Park on Lexington Avenue. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Shardlow summarized the proposal and the future right-of-way <br />dedication requirements along Lexington Avenue. Shardlow <br />indicated that the sign would be moved back an additional 6-1/2 <br />feet to allow for a future dedication of 16-1/2 feet of right-of- <br />way. Shardlow pointed out that the existing trees south of the <br />proposed sign location cause a visibility problem, making the <br />variance necessary. <br /> <br />Bierschied stated that if the sign was back any further, that <br />there would be a serious sign visibility problem of the sign. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked for clarification of the location of the property <br />line. Keel clarified the existing property line location. <br /> <br />Roberts questioned if a variance is needed. <br />that a variance is still necessary. <br /> <br />Shardlow responded <br /> <br />Wietecki questioned if the sign would be lit. <br />responded that it would be internally lit. <br /> <br />Bierschied <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked for clarification on the design of the sign. <br />Bierschied clarified the design. <br /> <br />stokes questioned if the symbol on the sign was the official <br />logo. Bierschied responded that it was the official logo of <br />Central Park. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />MOTION <br /> <br />Berry moved and DeBenedet seconded to recommend approval of the <br />sign setback variance for a sign at Central Park on Lexington <br />Avenue with the condition that the sign be located as presented <br />at the Planning Commission meeting such that it is outside the <br />future 16-1/2 foot dedication for Lexington Avenue as determined <br />by staff. <br /> <br />Bierschied pointed out that the money for the sign has been <br />dedicated by the Central Park auxiliary. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />stokes, Roberts, DeBenedet, Wietecki, <br />Berry, Goedeke, Johnson <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.