2002_0729_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.0 PROJECT SPECIFICS: 4.1 In April 2002, the existing B-Dale Club sign was damaged when a vehicle slid out of control, jumped the curb, and hit the sign. The former sign was located nine feet from the curb of Dale Street. However, the City cannot issue a variance that extends past a property line. Therefore, the variance is to allow an encroachment up to the property line. Since that date, the Club has not had a sign, nor has the City owned Villa Ball Field. 4.2 The proposed sign, in association with the Roseville Park & Recreation Department, would be 12 feet tall, approximately 5 feet wide, and include two sign areas (see attached proposal) for a total of 30 square feet. 4.3 Section 1005.01A1 requires structures to be set back a minimum of 30 feet from a public right-of-way. Under the Roseville City Code, a pylon sign is considered a structure, thus the 30 foot setback. 4.4 The B-Dale Club site faces some challenging existing conditions for sign visibility. First, there are a number of mature trees which lie along the property and boulevard of Dale Street. Second, the lots elevation dramatically drops as it continues east towards the ball fields. And third, the former sign was located within the Dale Street right-of-way in an unobstructed location. 5.0 STAFF FINDINGS: 5.1 Section 1013.02 states: Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the city council shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, to vary any such provision in harmony with the general purpose and intent thereof and may impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the public health, safety, and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. 5.2 Under State Statute 462.357, subd. 6 (2) provides authority for the city to "hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance....The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect" PF3410 -RCA 072902 -Page 2 of 4