Laserfiche WebLink
<br />a physical hardship since it was a condition created by the applicant and can be easily <br />modified/ corrected. However, because the building is an imposing, highly visible structure <br />(hard to mistake for another use), it would be difficult to justify the need for a second <br />identification sign. <br /> <br />3.2 As an alternative to a third sign, the original sign could be moved to a location along County <br />Road "D", perpendicular to "D" and set back a minimum of 15' from the property line. The <br />school sign along Victoria could identify both the school and the Church if moved closer to <br />Victoria and expanded to the 4' x 8' size. Both signs could be designed to have reader boards. <br /> <br />3.3 In addition to permitting one sign for the Church and one sign for the school. the City Code <br />does allow for driveway identification/direction signs that could help direct motorists to the <br />parking areas more effectively. <br /> <br />3.4 In the background packet the City received a letter from a neighbor who has no problem with <br />the sign itself, but asks for better parking management, especially on nearby streets, near <br />hydrants, and near intersections. <br /> <br />4.0 Staff Recommendation <br /> <br />4.1 Based on the State Statute and City policy described above, and the fact that the site can <br />be put to a reasonable use under the terms of the existing City Code and that an <br />alternative sign plan is available, the staff cannot recommend approval of the requested <br />variance for an additional free standing monument Church sign. <br /> <br />5.0 Planning Commission Action <br /> <br />5.1 After a public hearing held by the City of Roseville Planning Commission on February 10, <br />1999, the Commission recommended denial (6-0) of the variance based on the findings in <br />Section 3.0 and the recommendation in Section 4.0 of the Request for Planning <br />Commission Action, dated February 10,1999. <br /> <br />6.0 Suggested Council Action <br /> <br />By resolution, (draft attached) deny the request for a variance because no physical <br />hardship could be identified, and the site can be put to a reasonable use under the terms <br />of the existing City Code and because an alternative sign plan is available. <br /> <br />Application Deadline Schedule: Accepted 01.22.99: 60-day review time limit 03.24.99 <br />Attachments: Draft Proposed Council Resolution Denying the Request: Location Map; Sign Drawing <br />Prepared by: Dennis Welsch(490-2232) <br />Q:\Planning Files\3097 _Luth Church ResurrectionLRCA(022299).doc <br /> <br />PF3097 - RCA (02-22-99) - Page 2 of 2 <br />