My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 07211987
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
1987
>
PL PACKET 07211987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 3:35:10 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 3:34:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
15
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 1987
SP Name
PL PACKET 07211987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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
OIL, &AM <br /> BLUE LINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY <br /> 2827 NO. HELEN ST. • NO. ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55109 • (612) 777.7699 <br /> June 28 1987 <br /> Mr. Albert Plaisted <br /> 5210 Oconnell dr. <br /> St. Paul, Mn. 55112 <br /> Dear Mr. Plaisted <br /> This letter is in response to questions raised by the city of St. Xnthony re- <br /> -garding your Dairy Queen store at 2612 Hwy. 88, in the St. Anthony Shopping Center. <br /> As i understand, the questions are; <br /> 1. Does the permit for remodling, that was applied for and paid for reflect the <br /> actual construction. <br /> A. The answer is yes. The foundation and floor of the original store remained <br /> intact. The construction of the building was as per nlan. That plan was <br /> submitted to the city for approval. From that procedure a dollar amount for the <br /> building permit was established. That receipt is attached to this letter. <br /> 2. Did we, (Mr. Plaisted and myself) represent to the Planning Commsssion and the <br /> City Council the extent of remodling as it relates to the finished building. <br /> • A. The answer is yes, to yhe best of my recollection. <br /> 3. Did we misrepresent the extent of the remodling and thereby void the grandfathering <br /> of the roof top' rotating dairy queen sign. <br /> A. No. As previossly stated, the cor..pleted building is just as it was conveyed <br /> to the planning com�_ssion. As to the statement of a lowered roof line. <br /> ghat is correct, the height of the top of the mansard and the top of the <br /> dairy queen sign is lower than the original building. <br /> To the best of my recollection, a brochure from Dairy Queen International <br /> eras presented to the Planning Commission snowing the new mansard style, <br /> which this building has and which Commission agreed fit the desired theme <br /> of the St. Anthony Shopping Center. <br /> 4. The question of the Dairy Queen logo signs on the north and south side of the <br /> roof mansard <br /> A. Atthe meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council we �.�ere told <br /> that each business -,.as allowed one mansard sign, but due to the location of i <br /> the dairy queen building in relation to the remainder of the shopping center <br /> and to the street intersections north and south of the building. That the 1 <br /> store may be allowed to have two mansard signs. At some point after starting . " <br /> construction, we were notified by someone from the city that this building <br /> could have the two signs. <br /> I hope this information helps clear tin any misunderstanding. <br /> Sincerql y <br /> Charles E. Anderson <br /> �': ... (owner) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.