Laserfiche WebLink
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE <br /> CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE <br /> Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of <br /> the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the loth day of <br /> November 2014 at 6:oo p.m. <br /> The following Members were present: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte, and Roe. <br /> and the following Members were absent: None. <br /> Council Member McGehee introduced the following resolution and moved its <br /> adoption: <br /> RESOLUTION NO. 11186 <br /> A RESOLUTION APPROVING TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SIGNS AS AN <br /> INTERIM USE AT 1880 PERIMETER DRIVE (PF14-o2o) <br /> WHEREAS, Spire Credit Union has applied for approval of the proposed <br /> temporary construction signs as an INTERIM USE in conjunction at 1880 Perimeter Drive; <br /> and <br /> WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing <br /> regarding the proposed INTERIM USE on October 8, 2014,voting 5 — 0 to recommend <br /> approval (with conditions) of the use based on testimony offered at the public hearing as <br /> well as the information and analysis provided with the staff report prepared for said <br /> public hearing; and <br /> WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council has determined that approval of the <br /> proposed INTERIM USE will not result in adverse impacts to the surrounding properties <br /> based on the following findings: <br /> a. The proposed construction signs would not cause such impacts and could easily <br /> be removed from the premises and therefore the INTERIM USE would not have <br /> significant negative impact on the land <br /> b. The INTERIM USE does not constitute an excessive burden on streets, parks, or <br /> other facilities because the requested INTERIM USE is for the placement of signs on <br /> a yet-to-be-developed property; <br /> c. Given the setback distance of the two proposed temporary signs from property <br /> line, it has been determined that safety for vehicles traveling along Perimeter <br /> Drive would not be compromised and that any unsightliness of the signs over <br /> time can be addressed either by City removal or property owner upgrade of the <br /> signs. Therefore, the proposed installation of two construction signs on the <br /> premises would not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise <br /> Page 1 of 4 <br />