pm_021204 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

recommended the Commission take public comments and then continue discussion to the January 8th Planning Commission meeting. There being no further comments, Chair Duncan closed the hearing. Chair Duncan asked if the applicants were present and requested that they make a presentation. A general discussion of procedure occurred. Dan Reader, Hamline House resident, asked for details regarding setbacks. Tam McGehee, #7 Mid Oaks Lane, asked for City concern and policy regarding neighborhood commercial (basic services). She explained the need and layout of retail services for senior housing. She said there is a need for more senior condominiums (rather than rental property). Ownership may be less expensive than rental for independent living seniors. Seniors still look for housing investments. Chair Duncan remarked that the PUD is flexible and new requirements can be added; however, the limited market driven uses will be difficult to require. Motion: Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Bakeman, to continue the hearing to January 8, 2003 (There will not be a second notice provided). Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. b. Planning File 3446: A request by Grace Church for a Variance to Section 1009.03M (Ground Signs) of the Roseville City Code to allow the replacement of two ground signs (one adjacent to Hamline Avenue and one adjacent to County Road B2) on the premises. Chair Duncan opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas Paschke provide a summary of the project report dated December 4, 2002. Grace Church Roseville has applied for a variance on each of its existing ground signs. One sign currently lies within the County Road B2 right-of-way and the other, lies three feet from the property line adjacent to Hamline Avenue. This request seeks a variance of 15 feet and 12 feet, respectively, to the required 15 foot setback. Both sign locations have existing topographic issues to overcome. Most notably, the grade change along Hamline Avenue (dropping down to parking lot) makes it nearly impossible to place a sign at the required setback and maximum height, without comprising the signs visibility and placing it within an existing parking space. Similarly, the County Road B2 sign has grade issues (rising from the property line to structure/parting lot) that limit placement, and the required storm water pond takes up an ideal location. Existing mature trees also complicate matters for both locations. Staff recommended approval of both sign variances. Douglas Fruist, 2966 Hamline Avenue, expressed concern about the spotlight on the Hamline Avenue sign shining in motorist's eyes. Member Mulder asked the applicant to review lighting alternatives with the City staff. Member Stone asked for the design, noting the sign goes directly to the ground. 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 to replace a sign along County Road B2 and a 12 foot variance to Section 1009.03M of the Roseville City Code to replace a sign along Hamline Avenue, both for Grace Church Roseville, 1310 County Road B2, based on the findings in Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated December 4, 2002. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. c. Planning File 3442: Request by Oscar Knudson for a Conditional Use Permit and an 86 square foot Variance to Section 1004.01A4 of the Roseville City Code to allow an existing accessory structure to remain on the premises (initially required to be removed with 2001 building permit).