My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-24-1988 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
02-24-1988 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/12/2013 12:00:17 PM
Creation date
6/12/2013 11:57:56 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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
MEMORANDUM <br />TO: Little Canada Planning Commission <br />FROM: Steve Grittman <br />DATE: 10 February 1988 <br />NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS <br />RE: Little Canada Sign Ordinance - Freestanding Incorporated <br />Signs 4820 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 420 <br />FILE NO: 758.09 - 88.05 Mpls., Mn. 55416 612/925 -9420 <br />Attached to this memorandum is a survey of other Metropolitan com- <br />munities' sign restrictions. This survey was requested by the City Council <br />in response to' questions over the City's "Competitiveness" in its economic <br />development efforts. The City was notified that Slumberland may be interested <br />in resubmitted their sign variance request. Rather than review, the variance <br />application, the Council preferred a comparison of sign restrictions in other <br />cities to see if the Little Canada Ordinance is too restrictive. <br />Cities surveyed included surrounding communities of Roseville, Maplewood, Arden <br />Hills, and Vadnais Heights. In addition, Metropolitan communities which have <br />been successful in attracting high quality industrial development were surveyed <br />in an attempt to evaluate the importance of sign restrictions in location decisions. <br />These communities included Eden Prairie, Edina, Burnsville, Eagan, Woodbury, <br />Bloomington, and Minnetonka. <br />The format of the survey was to gather sign information for both commercial and <br />industrial areas to see if there was any variation in how districts were treated. <br />Data was gathered on sign area, height and setback where applicable. In addition, <br />we attempted to ascertain whether much variation is allowed from the established <br />standards. <br />Page 52 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.