My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012-05-02_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
2012-05-02_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/18/2012 2:22:48 PM
Creation date
12/18/2012 2:22:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
5/2/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, May 02, 2012 <br />Page 2 <br />Discussion among Commissioners and staff included clarification that the Easement <br />42 <br />Vacation was reviewed and recommended by Public Works and Zoning Departments, <br />43 <br />and would facilitate the Building Permit process to proceed; rationale in retaining a <br />44 <br />portion of the easement (northern 5’) at this time, since that property owner had not <br />45 <br />requested its vacation and was subject to a $300 application fee to process; typical <br />46 <br />dedication of easements to adjacent parcels; and comments fielded by staff from <br />47 <br />adjacent property owners within the legal notice area. <br />48 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that most of the calls had been for clarification of the easement and <br />49 <br />requested vacation, with the majority not even aware of the existence of the easement; <br />50 <br />and upon understanding that there would be no assessment to them for any future sewer <br />51 <br />work, no one had any further issues. <br />52 <br />City Planner Paschke concurred, noting that upon receipt of the post card notice, most <br />53 <br />had been unaware of the easement of that there was an unimproved road right-of-way <br />54 <br />existing in their neighborhood; and that staff had basically responded to inquiries from an <br />55 <br />educational process perspective. <br />56 <br />Applicant, Kevin Miller, 1770 Chatsworth Street <br />57 <br />The applicant was in the audience and advised (off-microphone) that he had nothing to <br />58 <br />add to staff’s report; and would also have no objection to his adjacent neighbor receiving <br />59 <br />a benefit from his personal application. <br />60 <br />Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at approximately 6:54 p.m., with no one <br />61 <br />appearing for or against. <br />62 <br />Deliberation <br />63 <br />At the request of Member Strohmeier, Mr. Lloyd explained the State Law provisions for <br />64 <br />process these vacation requests through the Planning Commission, rather than through <br />65 <br />the City’s Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission. <br />66 <br />MOTION <br />67 <br />Member Gisselquist moved, seconded by Member Boguszewski to recommend to <br />68 <br />the City Council APPROVAL OF THE VACATION of the southern five feet (5’) of the <br />69 <br />sewer easement at 1770 Chatsworth Street; based on the comments and findings <br />70 <br />of Sections 4-6 and the recommendations of Section 7 of the staff report dated May <br />71 <br />2, 2012. <br />72 <br />Ayes: 7 <br />73 <br />Nays: 0 <br />74 <br />Motion carried. <br />75 <br />Staff advised that anticipated City Council action was scheduled for May 21, 2012. <br />76 <br />b. PLANNING FILE 12-006 <br />77 <br />Request by Minnehaha Transportation, Inc. for approval of outdoor storage of bus <br />78 <br />fleet vehicles as a CONDITIONAL USE at 2507 Walnut Street <br />79 <br />Chair Boerigter opened the Public Hearing for File 12-007 at approximately 6:56 p.m. <br />80 <br />Associate Planner Lloyd briefly summarized the request to operate a school bus dispatch <br />81 <br />and maintenance facility if OUTDOOR STORAGE of the bus fleet is approved as a <br />82 <br />CONDITIONAL USE. Mr. Lloyd displayed the aerial photo of the site that had been <br />83 <br />inadvertently omitted in the staff report. <br />84 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that the property had an existing, non-conforming use (outside storage <br />85 <br />of trailers) having gone through various iterations of approval in the past; however, there <br />86 <br />was nothing making today’s use conforming and this would fall under the category of <br />87 <br />another non-conforming use, specific to the outdoor storage and need to install screened <br />88 <br />fencing around that outdoor storage area or perimeter, since the existing fence was an <br />89 <br />existing, non-conformity yet to be addressed after the potential use approved as a <br />90 <br />Conditional Use. Mr. Lloyd advised that staff and the applicant would determine a <br />91 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.