Laserfiche WebLink
<br />... <br /> <br />EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the <br />City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was duly called held at the City Hall on <br />Monday, the 25th day of August, 1997 at 6:30 P.M. <br /> <br />The following members were present:Wiski (arrived late), Mastel, Goedeke, <br />Maschka and Wall <br />and the following were absent: None <br /> <br />Council Member Mastel introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 9455 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE AT <br />2277 HIGHWAY 36 WEST <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Section 1009.09 of the Roseville City Code allows one pylon or ground <br />sign for each interior or corner lot in a 84 zoning district; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Vision World, Inc. has requested a variance to allow the placment of <br />a second ground sign on a corner lot at 2277 Highway 36 West; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the <br />request on Wednesday, August 13, 1997, and recommended denial of the requested <br />variance; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council received the Planning Commission's <br />recommendation on Monday, August 25,1997, and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council made the following findings: <br /> <br />1. Section 1009.09, City Code, allows one pylon or ground sign for each interior <br />or corner lot in a 84 zoning district. <br /> <br />2. The proposed sign would be the second ground sign for this property, which <br />is a corner lot. <br /> <br />3. Section 1009.03 requires gr~>und signs to be set back a minimum of 15 feet <br />from the front property line (street right-of-way line). The proposed location <br />of the second ground sign does not meet the setback requirement of 15 feet <br />from the west property line; therefore, the sign location would also require a <br />variance from the setback requirement to reduce the setback to less than five <br /> <br />Resolution _ - Page 1 of 2 <br />