pm_021106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

visibility and placement challenges due to the topography (trees, berm etc) of the area. Tom Metz, the applicant, indicated he would like to replace the old sign with the one in exactly the same location (on the mound). Based on the information provided and the findings in Section 5 of this project report, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the request by the Tom Metz (Gaughan Properties) for a 15 foot variance to Section 1 009.03M of the Roseville City Code for property at 2200 to 2500 Midland Groove Road (Midland Grove Condominiums), subject to the following conditions: a. The verification of the south property line. b. The sign not encroaching in to the public right-of-way and limited to a zero property line setback. c. The review and approval of a sign permit consistent with the approved variance and plans. d. The sign meeting all other applicable Codes. There being no further comments, Chair Duncan closed the hearing. Motion: Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Bakeman, to recommend approval of a 15 foot variance to Section 1009.03M of the Roseville City Code for Tom Metz (Gaughan Properties) allowing the installation of a replacement ground sign at Midland Grove Condominiums (2200 to 2250 Midland Grove Road), based on the findings in Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated November 6, 2002. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Motion carried. c. Planning File 3434: Request by the City of Roseville to consider annual amendments to the City of Roseville Comprehensive Plan, last updated 2001. Chair Duncan opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas Paschke provide a summary of the report dated November 6, 2002. Thomas Paschke advised that each year in December/January the Roseville Planning Commission and City Council affirm the Comprehensive Plan changes that have occurred during the previous year. The Comprehensive Plan was rewritten and adopted in September 1994. During the year, public hearings are held on all plan changes before the Commission and the Council approves them. Most amendments are then sent to the Metropolitan Council for their review, comment and approval. He further outlined the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The Community Development Department recommended opening the hearing, taking comments and questions, then continuing the hearing to the December 4, 2002 Planning Commission meeting when the Plan, as updated, will be available for review. On December 4, 2002, the Planning Commission will re-open the required public hearing. By resolution the Planning Commission reaffirms the changes (and any additions/deletions) made to the Plan during 2002, adopts the outline for placement in the Plan and recommends that the changes be placed within the Comprehensive Plan, and advises as to the CIP's consistency with the Plan. The Plan is then sent to the Council for its action. Member Mulder asked about the notification requirements and recommended any amendments be published in the Roseville Review and posted on the City's website (he indicated it is anticipated that there will be legislation requiring use of web as well as legal paper). Member Bakeman suggested the information also be placed in the Roseville Wrap. Member Duncan asked about the amendment process; Mr. Paschke indicated a spreadsheet, with documentation, will be presented to the Commission. Mr. Paschke also indicated the information may have to be sent to the HRA. There being no further comments, Chair Duncan closed the hearing. Motion: Member Duncan moved to continue this hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments to the regular Planning Commission meeting of December 4, 2002. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0