My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL MINUTES 11171987
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Minutes
>
1987
>
PL MINUTES 11171987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 5:50:09 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 5:50:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
21
SP Folder Name
PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1987
SP Name
PL MINUTES 11171987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
' 1 added that the signage was intended to let the community <br /> 2 know that the restaurant was under new ownership and manage- <br /> 3 ment and was being completely renovated. <br /> 4 Franzese: questioned whether the roof top sign, which she assumed was <br /> 5 directed towards Highway 88 traffic, was really needed if the <br /> 6 major intent is to let the community know the new restaurant <br /> 7 is to be family oriented. <br /> 8 Wingard: acknowledged the absence of signage on the north and west <br /> 9 sides where there are homes , but nevertheless, said he <br /> 10 wouldn' t want to "go overboard" on signage for a restaurant <br /> 11 located so close to a residential neighborhood. <br /> 12 Gow: indicated most of the signage was directed towards the high <br /> 13 traffic and not residential areas for that very reason. <br /> 14 Wingard: suggested the 64 square foot roof sign might fulfill that <br /> 15 purpose on the Highway 88 side, but there might not be a <br /> 16 need for 200 square feet of signage across the front of the <br /> 17 restaurant which is located on a 30 mile an hour street; <br /> 18 proposed that by reducing that sign size, the applicants <br /> 19 might be able to meet the ordinance restrictions. <br /> 60 Gow: persisted in his belief that the existing signage had not <br /> 1 provided adequate identification of the previous restaurant <br /> 22 with heavy traffic flowing from two different directions <br /> 23 which the new owner wanted to rectify with this proposal. <br /> 24 Werenicz : pointed out that the City might be willing to allow two <br /> 25 signs for a restaurant which fronts on two streets but <br /> 26 would have a hard time justifying a tripling of the total <br /> 27 sign surface allowed by the ordinance. <br /> 28 Gow: said he was glad the Commissioner recognized the need for <br /> 29 signs for two identification areas, but; <br /> 30 pointed out the difficulties the applicant was facing trying <br /> 31 to work with a sign which is tied into the building itself; <br /> 32 <br /> 33 indicated he perceived, that to derive any benefit from the <br /> 34 existing sign it would be important to provide a sign like <br /> 35 the one he had provided to avoid creating an unattractive <br /> 36 appearance which would "stick out" if the sign were not tied <br /> 37 in with the rest of the building. <br /> 38 Mr. Farrell said he had been in the restaurant business for quite a few <br /> 39 years after retiring from the military, having worked at the Sheraton <br /> 40 Park Hotel in St. Louis Park as well as several other restaurants in <br /> 41 the vicinity. He pointed out that the previous restaurant had done <br /> 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.