My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-23-93 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
06-23-93 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 3:38:03 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:55:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
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
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JUNE 23, 1993 <br />The City Planner pointed out that the City has used <br />elevation of property as a justification for a sign <br />height variance in the past, pointing out the Crown <br />Shoe property. <br />Scalze pointed out that the Gas N Go property is not <br />lower than surrounding properties. <br />Vogt reported that across the street in Roseville, the <br />new Walgreens store would be allowed a 25 foot high <br />sign of 100 square feet on one side, although they are <br />erecting a 20 foot high sign. Vogt reported that he is <br />asking for a 20 foot high sign that is 72 square feet <br />in size. Voqt felt that traffic on Rice Street will be <br />viewing signs at the 20 foot height level, therefore, <br />will miss his at 16 feet in height. <br />Pedersen pointed out that the variance criteria is not <br />meet in this application. Pedersen felt that there <br />were two separate issues, the variance application and <br />whether or not the City's sign ordinance was too rigid. <br />LaValle sugqested that the City's sign ordinance be <br />reviewed. <br />Scalze pointed out that whenever someone makes <br />application for a sign variance, the City ends up <br />revising the Code. <br />LaValle felt that the sign requirements along Rice <br />Street should be the same whether the property was on <br />the Roseville side, Shoreview side, or Little Canada <br />side. LaValle pointed out that the Gas N Go sign is <br />not visible to traffic traveling south on Rice Street <br />since the semifore pole is blocking the sign. LaValle <br />felt that in fairness to the businesses on Rice Street, <br />the sign ordinance should be reviewed taking into <br />consideration the ordinances of Shoreview, Roseville, <br />and Maplewood. <br />Vogt again pointed out his list of signs within the <br />City which exceed the 16 foot height his sign is <br />limited to. <br />LaValle pointed out that the Building Inspector would <br />have to verify the heights presented by Vogt. <br />Morelan noted that Gas N Go's primary competition is <br />the Food N Fuel station to the north and that the sign <br />arrangement at that station is a little different being <br />that signage is on their canopy. <br />The City Planner reported that the bottom of the Food N <br />Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.