My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_910911
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1991
>
pm_910911
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:46 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/11/1991
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.
/
10
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 />September 11, 1991 <br /> <br />Paget <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />The motion was withdrawn by the maker and seconder. <br /> <br />MOTION <br /> <br />Goedeke moved and Thomas seconded to table consideration of Robert <br />Seeger/Norwest Corporation request for a sign setback variance at <br />1717 Lexington Avenue for up to 60 days. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Goedeke, Harms, Thomas, Roberts, <br />stokes, DeBenedet <br /> <br />Nayes: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Planning File 2333 <br /> <br />Mike Platt/Fuddruckers request for sign height, setback, and size <br />variances at 2740 Snelling Avenue. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Carlson summarized the history, including the changes in the <br />surrounding area and the visibility difficulties present on the <br />site. Carlson pointed out that the size and setback variance may <br />not be justified but that some height variance to allow minimum <br />visibility above the adjacent building would be justified. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Issues discussed included visibility problems from County Road C <br />and Snelling, lack of an identified access point, the possibility <br />of a single sign being utilized to advertise all the business in <br />the area, sign appearance, the minimum height necessary to provide <br />visibility over the Slumberland building, the impact on the <br />business because the building, awnings, and signage are not <br />visible, the required correlation between letter size and the <br />distance the sign is to be viewed from, and the fact that there are <br />no street numbers shown on the area to guide customers to the site. <br /> <br />MOTION <br /> <br />Goedeke moved to table the matter for 60 days until the sign <br />ordinance review is complete. This motion died for a lack of a <br />second. <br /> <br />MOTION <br /> <br />Stokes moved and Goedeke seconded to table the application up to 60 <br />days to allow the applicant an opportunity to present a more <br />acceptable request to staff. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Goedeke, Thomas, Roberts, Stokes, <br />DeBenedet <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.