My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 04211992
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
1992
>
PL PACKET 04211992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 3:43:30 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 3:43:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
15
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 1992
SP Name
PL PACKET 04211992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
105
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
STAFF REPORT <br /> DATE: April 16, 1992 <br /> TO: Planning Commission Members <br /> FROM: David Mark Urbia, Management Assistant <br /> ITEM: "STOP-N-SHOP SUPERETTE" SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST <br /> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br /> The following report is regarding a sign variance request from Mr. James Sarna and Mr. <br /> William Vogt from Stop -N- Shop Superette, Inc., 1847 Johnson Street Northeast, <br /> Minneapolis, which requires variances for number of signs and location. <br /> BACKGROUND <br /> -A sign variance has been previously approved for the applicants to have a pylon sign <br /> with the Stop-N- Shop sign and gasoline brand signs. Originally, the request was for two <br /> Phillips 66 signs (44" by 44"). The current request is for two Conoco signs (2' by 6') to <br /> be placed on the north and south ends of the canopy, on the side closest to the road. <br /> In the Sign Ordinance, 430.15, Subd. 5, a canopy is defined as a permanent roof <br /> structure attached to and supported by the building. There is no provision for a canopy <br /> sign that is being requested. In addition, Section 430.40, Subd. 9(b)(2) of the Sign <br /> Ordinance allows for a pylon sign for a gas station to have brand identification signs. If <br /> the Conoco 'signs were to be allowed upon the canopy, there would be no brand <br /> identification signs on the pylon sign, hence the pylon sign would be nonconforming. <br /> RECOMMENDATION <br /> The application does not meet the three conditions. Further, it is a sea change in <br /> direction from the variance allowed only a few months previous. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.