Laserfiche WebLink
Extract Of Minutes Of Meeting Of The <br /> C"Ity Council Of The City Of Rose"'fle, <br /> Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of <br /> Roseville,Qounty of Ramsey,Minnesota,was duly held at the City Fall on Monday,the 22nd day <br /> of February, 1999,at 6:30 h.M. <br /> The following members were present: <br /> and the following were absent: <br /> Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br /> RESOLUTION No. <br /> DENYING A VARIANCE <br /> TO ALLOW A SECOND FREE STANDING <br /> MONUMENT CHURCH SIGN AT 910 COUNTY ROAD H (PF3097) <br /> (Lutheran Church of the Resurrection) <br /> w iEREA ,Section 1009.04(E)of the Roseville City Code allows one sign not greater than <br /> fifty(50)square feet in gross surface area for a church in a residential zone;and <br /> w iEREAS, .Lutheran Church of the Resurrection,910 County Road D, has requested a <br /> variance to allow a second non-illuminated monument ground sign for the Church on the <br /> nofthwest portion of their property located at 910 County Road D, said property being legally <br /> described as follows: <br /> The south 95 feet of the north 367 feet of Lot 1, Saint haul Dark, Ramsey County, <br /> Minnesota.The north 272 feet of Lot land the north 272 feet of Lot 2,except the west 128 <br /> feet thereof, Saint haul park, Ramsey county, Minnesota: subject to road easements on <br /> County Road D and victoria Street; Lot 1, Block 6, Anderson-Erickson Addition No. 2, <br /> Ramsey County,Minnesota; <br /> wHEREAS,the Roseville Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the request <br /> on Wednesday,February 10, 1999,and recommended denial of the requested variance;and <br /> WHEREAS* the Roseville City Council received the Planning Commission`s <br /> recommendation on Monday,February 22, 1999;and. <br /> WHEREAS,the Roseville City Council made the owing findings: <br /> 1. Minnesota Statutes 462.357 provides for variance requirements which the City has <br /> adopted in City Bode Section 1013.02. The applicant is required to provide the <br /> burden of proof that a variance from the existing code is necessary. The applicant <br /> must demonstrate a unique physical hardship on the site; that no practical <br />