My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
vm_120104
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Variance Board
>
Minutes
>
2004
>
vm_120104
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:38:21 PM
Creation date
5/1/2006 8:35:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Variance Board
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
12/1/2004
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.
/
4
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
City of Roseville - Variance Board Minutes for December 1, 2004Page 3 of 4 <br />Welsh Companies in cooperation with KPERS Realty Holding #41, Inc. (property owner) seeks to <br />replace the existing pylon sign at Rosedale Square with a new pylon sign and two monument signs. <br />Specifically, the applicant seeks approval to construct a 38 foot tall multi-tenant monument sign with <br />405 sq. ft. of sign area (not actual signage) adjacent to the parking lot at the intersection of Lincoln <br />Drive and County Road C; the construction of a 14 feet tall multi-tenant monument sign with 72 sq. <br />ft. of sign area at the easterly access into the Byerly’s (from County Road C); and the construction of <br />a 14 feet tall multi-tenant monument sign with 72 sq. ft. of sign area at the main (southerly) access <br />to the site from Lincoln Drive. <br />The Staff recommends approval of an amended and expanded variance to Section 1009 of the <br />Roseville City Code to allow one pylon and two moment signs at Rosedale Square based on the <br />findings in Section 5 and the following conditions: <br />a.The pylon sign (existing to be relocated) must be a double pole design that includes a brick <br />planter base; brick columns with E.I.F.S accents; and an E.I.F.S. top cap. <br />b.The pylon sign must be limited to a height of 38 feet and a total signage not to exceed 240 <br />sq. ft. <br />c.The pylon sign must be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the (new) property adjacent to <br />County Road C, and 10 feet from Lincoln Drive, (where a storm pond expands the right of <br />way from the road). <br />d.The monument signs must be built of similar materials to that of the pylon (brick and E.I.F.S.). <br />e.The monument sign along County Road C must be limited to a height of 14 feet (a height <br />variance of 6 feet) and a total signage not to exceed 35 sq. ft., and must be set back 15 feet <br />from the right of way, and as far west of the entry drive as possible (staff to work with <br />applicant). <br />f.The monument sign adjacent to Lincoln Drive must be must be limited to a height of 14 feet <br />(a height variance of 6 feet) and a total signage not to exceed 35 sq. ft., and be setback a <br />minimum of 10 from the property line adjacent Lincoln Drive; and must be placed on the <br />south side of the driveway entrance; and the number of signs is granted a variance to allow <br />for a second monument sign on the site.. <br />g.The variance (if granted) shall expire within 6 months of its approval if a sign permit is not <br />issued (Section 1013.03). <br />The Variance Board requested the staff to clarify the resolution with appropriate sizes, setbacks and <br />actual variances requested. <br />Tim Prinzen, Welsh Companies, explained that the property owners support the staff report and with <br />the correction to the pylon sign with setback from the storm water pond at Lincoln and County Road <br />C. <br />Member Mulder asked if the monument signs (especially Lincoln Drive) may create sight line <br />problems. A more appropriate location would be the south side of the entry or mid-point between the <br />entries. The pylon placement is acceptable. <br />Tim Prinzen explained the landscaping and tree visual challenge to sign along the frontage. <br />Member Mulder asked if the County Road C monument sign should be moved further west. Byerlys <br />has south and east wall signage and will not be on the monument sign. <br />Member Doherty expressed concern regarding the two signs on County Road C, but found it <br />acceptable with moving the monument sign further west. <br />Member Boerigter said the signage size may be a problem if not corrected for traffic sight line <br />issues. <br />http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/variance/minutes/2004/vb1201.htm5/1/2006 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.