My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-06-1996
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
11-06-1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2018 3:22:02 PM
Creation date
7/31/2018 2:29:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
11/6/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
107
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View Planning Commission November 6, 1996 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 10 III <br /> now proposing monument signage and a 50' <br /> high, 430 square foot identification sign. Signs <br /> existing at the Mendota and Crystal centers <br /> were reviewed and were noted to be similar to <br /> the request being made by the applicant. <br /> Director Sheldon went explaince <br /> o on to that n <br /> you lower the sign, <br /> even to 50 feet, you <br /> cannot Ar doi.:r <br /> Y 9 <br /> i `' <br /> see it over the bridge, so from Staffs <br /> you have started to lose the <br /> perspective, <br /> v k....v <br /> connection between the bridge and the need luesiiitik <br /> for a variance. She expressed a concern that <br /> tin a variance for a sign of this size would :>: <br /> granting <br /> set aP recedent, and lead to other shopping <br /> whe .: n<iiil;. <br /> centers requesting this type of signage tl igni.:;.;;;il <br /> ornot. She suggested a <> < «`>« >, <br /> there is a bridge n gg <br /> ::ssue: '1 <br /> „:0- <br /> couple ofpossible ways to address ti.-11 <br /> Y <br /> amend our signre u a <br /> t `ns to <br /> one beingto m ��n <br /> 9 <br /> ..7:!:::::!:.;ri:::,, <br /> recognize that a shopping center,ofiis size <br /> may need more signage than we` €llow, the -' i <br /> other being, the applicant coutd> equest::;a <br /> variance for the monument sftage at tot;,:..~~` .. . <br /> drivewaya ttcances basedt < he impa t f the`>. <br /> bride .a d have a 'ons :.n of a sizeithat li"'" <br /> meets thei t F :code. 'g e=tamed that <br /> another potbhtuld be# " > .d our Code <br /> to allow for a " tpeage" wppuld allow <br /> the shoppingim tt r ust mizecf`'sign . <br /> regulations�'which wou'd feed to be approved <br /> by the fanning Comrml e€si" <>`She further <br /> explained that anotheta 'ibility would be to <br /> grf a "floating box" f"signage from the top of <br /> the railing up to the; .feet, with a condition on <br /> iiiiiiikiance that. e bridge must be built and <br /> t t ave i < nonths in which to update our <br /> st` €tiis. If the Sign Code is changed <br /> to afinw'tf`e signage, the "floating box" could <br /> not be used. Director Sheldon suggested that <br /> perhaps the Planning Commission could table <br /> this item until a firmer proposal is made and <br /> more information is obtained from the applicant. • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.