My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf09-002
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
2009
>
pf09-002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2014 3:46:44 PM
Creation date
6/21/2013 2:49:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
09-002
Planning Files - Type
Planned Unit Development
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
431
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
� <br />Roseville Planning Commission Meeting <br />Wednesday, Auqust 3, 1983 <br />-3- <br />�, <br />Roseville Fire Chief Jim Dougherty expressed concern that the private roadway <br />be included on City maps for public safety purposes. <br />Recommendation <br />Matson Moved and Moeller Seconded that the Planning Commission recommend <br />approval of Art t�i�c3�'I;��'s request for preliminary plat and special use <br />permit for PUD at 1995 County Road B, with the following conditions: <br />1) That the Ferris Lane intersection be revised to form a"T" intersection. <br />2) That the drainage and utilities plans be subject to approval by the City <br />Engineering Department. <br />3) That the tennis court be constructed in accordance with City Code requirements. <br />4) That the developer bear the cost of the construction of Ferris Lane and the <br />stub street. <br />5) That the project be developed in accordance with plans dated 7/11/83. <br />Roll Call, Ayes: Matson, Moeller, Wiski, Berry, Dressler, and Rukavina. Nays: None. <br />Planning File 1436 - Housing alternatives in the R-l. zoning district. <br />Discussion <br />Mr. Dahlgren suggested that since the meeting had run fairly long, the Commission <br />should continue the discussion of housing alternatives to the next meeting. <br />Matson asked whether the requirement of separate utilities for duplexes would <br />also pertain to accessory apartments. Mr. Dahlgren explained that there is no <br />need for separate utilities for an accessory apartment because, unlike a duplex <br />which can be divided among two owners, the property owner cannot sell the <br />accessory apartment. There would always be only one property owner responsible <br />for the utilities of the building. <br />Recommendation <br />Wiski Moved and Dressler Seconded that the Planning Cormmission continue the <br />discussion of the housing alternatives issue until the next Commission meeting. <br />Roll Call, Ayes: Matson, Moeller, Wiski, Berry, Dressler, and Rukavina. <br />Nays; None. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.