CC 06-08-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

c Minutes of aegular Council Meeting June 8, 1981 froa Lexington Avenue as long as there are mature trees on the site vhich vould obscure the sign at the 25' setback. Lynden noted that in the case of a variance, two findings are to be aade: 1. An undue hardship, topographical in nature exists, and 2, The variance will not be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Lynden noted that the reason or baais for the findings, either pro or con, should be given. . Dave Shannon (Aaerican Sign and Indicator Corporation) asked that Council reconsider the request for variance based OD the original variance for the existing sign- location of trees; wants to replace this sign; reason for variance is still there; noted that the bank needs a sign'to tell the public the bank is there; sign aeets ordinance require.ents; reason for original variance still exists. A diagre. indicating existing trees on the site waa reviewed in- dicating that 7 trees remain ~in the proposed sign location, only two of whicb essentially are living; it was noted that there conaequently is soae question as to whether the basis for tbe variance still exists. Donovan (Roseville State Bank) said the dead trees vill be re.oved; noted that at the required)5' setback, sian will be on the exist- ing sidewalk. The following analysis was .e.e: 1. Logic of the proposed sign is to a) avoid the neceasity of two signs, and b) identify tbe bank. 2. The "ground sign" was not lighted and was not conspicious. 3. Difficulty now is that the proposed sign is not inconspicious, and the concern is its relation- ship to the site, and its close proxi.ity to the proposed expanded Lexington Avenue. " In discussion, it vas Doted that one tree may have to be removed to locate the sign at the required 25' setback. Concern was expressed re granting s variance which would require relocation of tbe sign should the trees die (requested basis for granting tbe variance). Woodburn moved to reconsider the previous Council action. Motion was seconded by Wingert and carried unanimously. Wingert aoved, seconded by Hollenhorst, that Council deny tbe setback variance based on failure to establish a "hardship"; aotion carried unanimoualy. . Case No. 81-14, Lot Split and Consolidation - 3279 N. Snelling and 1479 Buaaard Court Council vas, referred to a transparency of the two lots which are the subject of this application. Miller noted that the applicant proposes to split 20' from the east side of Lot B (Bussard Court) and consolidate it with Lot A (Snelling Avenue); providing e 20' wide access to the house on Lot A (should this lot at some time be split into tvo building sites); noted that this is not requested or contemplated at this time. -2-