My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-12-11-Planning Comm. Minutes
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
05-12-11-Planning Comm. Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/17/2011 3:28:44 PM
Creation date
5/17/2011 3:28:34 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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 />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MAY 12, 2011 <br />use of the property. The Planner noted that the new law gives cities more <br />leeway in granting variances. He felt that eventually there will be <br />litigation over some of the terms used, resulting in more definition. <br />Scott Loegge, LeRoy Signs, representing Sherman & Associates, appeared <br />before the Commission requesting approval of a Variance in order to place <br />a monument sign along Rice Street for The Village. He noted that last <br />year the City approved the master sign plan for The Village. He further <br />reported that the footings were installed at the time the foundation was put <br />in for the office building. Loegge reported that they just learned that <br />Ramsey County took an additional right -of -way of 10 feet for Rice Street, <br />which results in the monument sign location being only 6 inches from the <br />right -of -way. <br />Knudsen asked if the sign location was in conformance with the Code at <br />the time the footings were installed, and became out of conformance as a <br />result of the County taking additional right -of -way. The City Planner <br />reported that the City reviewed and approved the plat which was then sent <br />to the County. At that time the County took the additional right -of -way. <br />Knudsen asked if the sign location could be moved. Loegge replied that <br />there is no room to move the sign. Knudsen asked about other options. <br />Loegge reported that placing the sign on the building or turning the <br />monument sign would provide little Rice Street visibility. It would only <br />be when a driver got right up to the sign that it would be noticeable, and <br />this could create a traffic hazard on Rice Street. <br />Knudsen noted that the sign was designed to create visibility from Rice <br />Street, and a practical difficulty would be that there is not other location <br />for the sign that would accomplish this. Loegge indicated that if the sign <br />were made smaller, the tenants' names would not be readable. This, too, <br />could create a traffic hazard if drivers on Rice Street were trying to read a <br />sign that was too small. <br />Knudsen asked if the sign meets all other Code requirements. The Planner <br />replied that it did. <br />Fischer asked the type of tenants in the building. Loegge reported that <br />there is currently a nutrition business, a title company, an insurance office, <br />and NexStar. Duray noted that when the plat was approved by the City, <br />the property owner's expectation was that there would be adequate room <br />for a monument sign. The Planner agreed. However, the County then <br />took additional right -of -way for Rice Street. <br />-4- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.