My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_910313
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1991
>
pm_910313
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:37 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/13/1991
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.
/
14
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 />Wednesday March 13, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />be delayed to find out information about the K-C Hall sign in <br />order to treat both properties consistently. DeBenedet also <br />testified that perhaps the applicant could trade off the signage <br />on the building for a larger pylon sign. DeBenedet pointed out <br />that the existing signage on the building could be reduced after <br />a reasonable time frame for amortization of the cost of the sign. <br />Johanson replied that they still have to put up some signage on <br />the building which would cost them more money. Johanson also <br />pointed out that his customers were coming from a 50 mile radius <br />whereas the K-C Hall customers are people who know the area. <br /> <br />Johnson indicated her concern that the granting of this variance <br />might set a precedent for additional requests along Snelling <br />Avenue. <br /> <br />Johanson stated that the sign company did the sign design but <br />that the requirements from the zoning ordinance were misread. <br />The sign company had indicated to him that this was the way to <br />have a sign that is necessary. He stated that the cost <br />difference was not that much, that if the sign would have worked, <br />it would already have been up. <br /> <br />Jopke researched the building permit records and found that the <br />permit indicated that the sign at the Knights of Columbus was 96 <br />sq. feet, 25 feet high and was setback 30 feet. <br /> <br />Berry stated that address numbers should be provided and also <br />should appear on cross street signs in the area. <br /> <br />Goedeke stated that he was uncomfortable with the size because it <br />was more than double what would be allowed. Goedeke stated his <br />concern that it would set a precedent. <br /> <br />stokes questioned if there was a similar request at the Kentucky <br />Fried Chicken and expressed his concern that snelling Avenue <br />would turn into a situation similar to South Robert Street where <br />you have one sign after another. Stokes testified that the <br />applicant needs a pylon sign but doesn't see a hardship to <br />justify the additional area and height. <br /> <br />Roberts stated that he did not see the hardship to justify the <br />additional size. Roberts pointed out that the City is making an <br />effort to review its ordinances and contain signs in the <br />community. <br /> <br />DeBenedet stated that he was concerned about the proposed <br />signage. He said that something larger may be appropriate, <br />similar to the size of the Knights of Columbus sign but not the <br />176 square feet requested. DeBenedet added that if the HOM <br />letters were 3-4 feet high that it would be sufficient to allow <br />motorists to make safe decisions. DeBenedet suggested that the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.