My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_990210
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1999
>
pm_990210
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:35:33 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:56:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/10/1999
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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 />Ed Wolfe, representing Lutheran Church of the Ressurection, described the Church's request. He noted the <br />existing sign was installed in 1958. There is more traffic on County Road D now. The proposed sign is flexible (a <br />reader board) and could include events at the Church. <br /> <br />Chair Rhody asked the Church what is the hardship? Mr. Wolfe said the signs are not visible from County Road D. <br />The traffic moves quickly through the intersection. <br /> <br />Member Wilke discussed spacing alternatives for signage 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 being re- <br />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 second sign be <br />allowed? (Yes) <br /> <br />There were no other public comments. Chair Rhody closed the hearing. <br /> <br />Chair Rhody explained that he found no hardship and there are viable alternatives on the site. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Mulder, to recommend denial of a second sign, <br />because of lack of unique physical hardship and because there are alternative solutions available. <br /> <br />Member Klausing described the dilemma, the ordinance is clear and states that one sign is allowed. He asked if the <br />geography of the Church lot (large corner lot) necessitates more visibility. <br /> <br />Member Wilke noted that moving the corner sign to the west would allow better visibility. There is some visibility <br />hardship coming north on Victoria. <br /> <br />Member Mulder asked ifthere was signage on the building (Yes). <br /> <br />Motion carried 6-0. <br /> <br />Ayes: Mulder, Olson, Cunningham, Rhody, Klausing, Wilke <br /> <br />Nays: None <br /> <br />6d. Planning File 3095. Tom Weaver, 2330 Auerbach, request for a conditional use permit to construct a 22' x <br />44' (968 s.f.), 4-stall detached garage. <br /> <br />Chair Rhody opened the hearing and requested Dennis Welsch to present a summary of the staff written report <br />dated February 10, 1999. <br /> <br />Member Mulder asked for clarification of building height and design as per the new ordinance on accessory <br />buildings. <br /> <br />Tom Weaver explained the design of the building and the size of the garage door (same as existing door). He <br />noted that a gable roof would help direct the drainage more effectively than a hip roof. The garage will either be <br />stucco or maintenance free siding of same color. <br /> <br />There were no questions or comments from the audience. <br /> <br />Chair Rhody closed the hearing. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Wilke to recommend approval of Tom and Marilyn <br />Weaver's request for a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 968 S.f. detached accessory building at <br />2330 Auerbach Avenue North, based on the findings in Section 3 and with the conditions listed in Section 3 of the <br />Request for Planning Commission Action of February 10, 1999. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.