My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SP-079
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Special Use Permit File PLZ 02100
>
SP 001-100
>
SP-079
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2007 11:28:17 AM
Creation date
2/9/2007 12:53:29 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
<br />..' <br /> <br />April 13, 1978 <br /> <br />Application for Special Use Permit <br />SP-79 <br /> <br />PURPOSE <br /> <br />To consider application for special use permit for signing of an <br />office building. <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br /> <br />Applicant: Keith Harstad <br /> <br />Location: 2191-2199 Silver Lake Road (SE corner of <br />Mississippi St. and Silver Lake Rd) <br />Zoninq: B~l, Limited Business <br /> <br />Present Use of Property: Office building - under construction <br /> <br />Ordinance Requirements: Section 14-200 c(3) states that <br />buildings having multiple occupancies with both <br />individual and shared entrances shall be <br />regulated as in Section 14-180, Areas of Special <br />Control. Section 14-180 essentially states that <br />signing for a matter sho~ld be developed as part <br />of an overall sign plan approved by a special <br />use permit. <br /> <br />The basic guidelines expressed in the sign ordinance are that <br />buildings such as this should be identified with a single ground <br />sign identifying the building only and that individual tenants <br />are permitted individual wall signs with name only. <br /> <br />By his attached letter the applicant is requesting that he be <br />allowed to have just the ground sign but that the sign contain <br />the names of the individual tenants rather than just identifying <br />the building. In compromise the applicant is proposing that <br />there be no wall signs on the building. In this proposal the <br />applicant has noted that wall signs would detract from the <br />residential character of the building. <br /> <br />Overall, the proposal appears to be very good. with the design <br />of the building, wall signs could make the building look cluttered <br />and unattractive. Just a single ground sign would permit sound <br />identification and '\Alould preserve the residential building appear- <br />ance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.