Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Member Thomas asked if conditions could be attached which added additional trees. <br /> <br />Member Wall stated that church could function without having a variance and that the <br />variance was only necessary to create a concert hall. He stated this was not a practical <br />difficulty and, therefore, is opposed to the variance. <br /> <br />Member Harms stated no variance was necessary if the entrance was any other side of the <br />building. The building can be used as a community facility. <br /> <br />Member Thomas stated that the entryway is at the lower level near the parking area, and <br />that the neighborhood would benefit from such a design. However, there are more trees <br />needed to screen the height of the building. She stated that the hardship was topographic. <br />She asked for other buildings to compare to this project. <br /> <br />Member Sandstrom stated he was concerned about why other plans had been rejected and <br />asked that the report of the consultant be part of the variance request. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Sandstrom moved, seconded by Member Harms, to continue until <br />November 9, 1994, the request for a height variance by Roseville Lutheran Church to <br />allow the applicant to bring forth additional information on alternatives and reasons why <br />the alternatives were rejected; and to have reasons why the shape of the church is the only <br />acoustical solution. Applicant should also bring forth an elevation illustrating the <br />southeast elevation of the site with spruce trees as seen rrom Roselawn. <br /> <br />Member Wall stated that the hardship must be better defined and cannot be created by the <br />applicant. Member Harms stated that she had not seen other site designs for this project. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Harms, Sandstrom, Wall, Thomas <br /> <br />Nays: None <br /> <br />6. (d) Planning File 2656 <br /> <br />Amendments to the Shoreland Ordinance. <br /> <br />Chairperson Thomas opened the public hearing and requested the Community <br />Development Director, Dennis Welsch, to provide a background report regarding the <br />amendments to the Shoreland Ordinance. <br /> <br />Dennis Welsch noted that members of the Planning Commission and City Council, as well <br />as staff and citizens, had worked on the revisions to the Shoreland Management <br />Ordinance. The purposes of the revisions were to update the 1974 Ordinance to the 1994 <br />DNR requirements, as well as provide more environmental protection for wetlands and <br /> <br />8 <br />