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 />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 "0", perpendicular to "0" 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 Suggested Planning Commission Action <br /> <br />5.1 By motion, recommend denial of the variance based on the findings in Section 3.0 and the <br />recommendation in Section 4.0 of the Request for Planning Commission Action, dated <br />February 10,1999. <br /> <br />Application Deadline Sehedule: Aeeepted 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 W elseh( 490- 2232) <br />Q:\Planning Files\3097 _Luth Church Resurrection\3097 _RPCA(021099).doc <br /> <br />PF3097 - RPCA (02-10-99) - Page 2 of2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.