Laserfiche WebLink
<br />George C. Brandt, Case No. 2197 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />2. DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS <br /> <br />Policy Considerations <br /> <br />Whenever a variance has been requested in the city of <br />Roseville it has been our policy to require an accurate <br />site plan. without an accurate site plan, based upon an <br />accurate and up-to-date boundary survey, the City cannot <br />know for certain what it is approving. We believe that <br />this is a reasonable policy and procedure and is <br />consistent with the established planning practices in <br />virtually every community in the Metropolitan Area. <br /> <br />It has also been our policy and procedure to require the <br />applicant to submit sufficiently detailed information to <br />explain the hardship that justifies the variance. When it <br />comes to sign variances, it has been our practice to get <br />sketches or photographs that illustrate the visibility of <br />the sign if it were to be located in accordance with the <br />code, as well as their proposed location. This type of <br />information has been requested from this applicant and he <br />has responded by saying that it has been submitted for <br />City review. We obviously disagree on this point. <br /> <br />3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION <br /> <br />We believe that this application is incomplete. We have <br />informed the applicant of this and have told him what was <br />needed to make the application complete. His response was <br />to tell us that what he has submitted is adequate. <br />Therefore, he has chosen to have you review and decide on <br />it based upon the merits (or lack of merits) that you can <br />determine from what has been submitted. <br /> <br />The fact that you are being asked to approve this variance <br />after the sign has already been installed may be some <br />evidence as to what regard the applicant holds for city <br />zoning requirements. Perhaps he was not aware that the <br />City requires permits for signs, or that there are some <br />rules that govern signs in Roseville. Even if that is the <br />case, it is clear that he has chosen not to provide the <br />basic information that we consistently require of all <br />applicants in similar circumstances. <br /> <br />In summary, we strongly recommend against the approval of <br />any variance without an accurate site plan. If Mr. Brandt <br />chooses to change his mind and submit a site plan, we <br />would recommend that this item be continued pending the <br />submission and review of the information requested in Rick <br />Jopke's letter of January 7th. <br />