Laserfiche WebLink
<br />6b. Planning File 3098. Roseville Chrysler Auto Body Shop, request for a conditional use permit to <br />store inoperable vehicles awaiting repair within an enclosed structure on property located at 2945 <br />Partridge Road. (Section 1007.03D1b) <br />)!!p-plicanthas. re.q.u_e~teci20!l~i!l!l~~~e}0 Planning-Commission meeting of March 10, 1999) ---. <br /> <br />I ~tion: Chair Rhody moved, seconded by Member Cunningham, to recommend that the applicati: . <br />for a conditional use permit, by Roseville Chrysler Auto Body Shop, to store inoperable vehicles <br />) awaiting repair within an enclosed structure on prop.. erty located at 2945 Partridge road, be continued <br />Nt7 to a date certain, that being March 10, 1999, and that the City shall re-advertise the new hearing date <br />. and re-send the appropriate notice to affected property OWI)ers, and further, that the Council approve <br />tw. fit , a 60-day extension of the 60-day review period. <br />~" "-,.~--- .-- <br />~ · Motion carried 6-0. <br />Ayes: Mulder, Olson, Cunningham, Rhody, Klausing, Wilke <br />Nays: None <br /> <br /> <br />6c. Planning File 3097. Lutheran Church of the Resurrection, 910 County Road D, request for a <br />variance for a second freestanding monument sign. <br /> <br />Chair Rhody opened the hearing and requested a verbal summary from Dennis Welsch's February 10, <br />1999, report. ~~ <br />"-wi-l*" ~ <br />Ed Wolfe, representing Lutheran Church of the Ressur ction, described the Ch ch's request. He <br />noted the existing sign was installed in 1958. There is{':mC on County Road D. The proposed aign is <br />flexible, and could include events at the Church. <br />'-(.At'..W"~N114 ") <br />Chair Rhody asked the Church what is the hardship? Mr. Wolfe said the signs are not visible from <br />County Road D. The traffic moves quickly through the intersection. <br /> <br />Member Wilke discussed spacing alternatives for sign age 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 <br />being re-planted. The Church and 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 <br />second sign be allowed?~) <br />~ IMJd _..1W.. ....t\(.to~ . <br />A Chair Rhody closed the hearing. <br /> <br />Chair Rhody explained that he found no hardship and there are viable alternati'ves~ ~c;.foe · <br /> <br />Motion: Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Mulder, to recommend denial of a <br />second sign, because of lack of unique physical hardship and because there are alternative solutions <br />available. <br /> <br />Member Klausing described the dilemma, the ordinance is clear and states that one sign is allowed. <br />He asked if the geography of the Church lot (large corner lot) necessitates more visibility. <br /> <br />Page 4 of 6 <br /> <br />Cl\ <br />~/(A <br />l\U <br />