My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03097
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3000
>
pf_03097
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:34:01 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 3:03:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3097
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
3115 VICTORIA ST N
Applicant
LUTH CH OF THE RESURRECTION
PIN
022923210001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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 />EXTRACT OF DRAFT MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 02.10.99: <br /> <br />6e. Planning File 3097. Lutheran Church of the Resurrection, 910 County Road D, request for a variance for a <br />second freestanding monument sign. <br /> <br />Chair Rhody opened the hearing and requested a verbal summary from Dennis Welsch's February 10, 1999, <br />report, <br /> <br />Ed Wolfe, representing the Church, described the Church's request. He noted the existing sign was installed in <br />1958. There is traffic on County Road D. The new sign is flexible and could include events at the Church. <br /> <br />Chair Rhody asked the Church what is the hardship? Mr. Wolfe said the signs are not visible from County <br />Road D. The traffic moves quickly through the intersection. <br /> <br />Member Wilke discussed spacing alternatives for signage along the building. <br /> <br />Mr. Wolfe noted that direction for deliveries is important. <br /> <br />Member Olson asked if driveway entrance signs are possible (yes). <br /> <br />John Christenson, representing Resurrection Church, stated that the Church site is very large and is being re- <br />planted. The lot will not be seen by pass-by traffic without additional signage. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham noted that the Montessori School is not affiliated with the Church. Could a second sign be <br />allowed? <br /> <br />Chair Rhody closed the hearing. <br />Chair Rhody explained that he found no hardship and there are viable alternatives. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Mulder, to recommend denial of a second sign, <br />because of lack of hardship and available alternatives. <br /> <br />Member Klausing described the dilemma, the ordinance is clear and states that one sign is allowed. He asked if <br />the geography of the Church lot (large corner lot) necessitates more visibility. <br /> <br />Member Wilke noted that moving the corner sign to the west would allow better visibility. There is some visibility <br />hardship coming north on Victoria. <br /> <br />Member Mulder asked if there was signage on the building (Yes). <br /> <br />Motion carried 6-0. <br />Ayes: Mulder, Olson, Cunningham, Rhody, Klausing, Wilke <br />Nays: None <br /> <br />r/ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.