My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02366
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2300
>
pf_02366
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:49:33 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 11:10:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2366
Planning Files - Type
Special Use Permit
Address
2210 COUNTY ROAD C W
Applicant
EVEREST DEVELOPMENT, LTD.
Status
APPROVED
PIN
082923120001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
134
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 />.....ORARDUII <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />May 4, 1992 <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />Steve Sarkozy <br />Phil Carlson <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />RE: <br /> <br />PLANNING OFFICE HOURS, April 29, 1992 <br /> <br />Bill Penk, Charles Schatz; CSM Developers <br />Jim Cooperman, Cooperman Archts. <br /> <br />CSM intends to develop the fo~er Ruan site at County Road C and <br />Long Lake Road with an office/service building similar to the one <br />proposed previously by the Everest Group. Everest has decided not <br />to develop the property. The site plan and building proposed by <br />CSM are almost identical in every respect to the design that the <br />City approved for Everest, and it is our opinion that the changes <br />are minor and that the previous Special Use Pe~it approval for the <br />office/service use is applicable to CSM. <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />We discussed all aspects of the design standards and the only area <br />of concern is the proposed building materials in the rear of the <br />building. CSM had proposed plain concrete block there, whereas the <br />Everest design had a significant band of brick carried from the <br />front around to the rear of the building. CSM will revise the <br />design and resubmit. <br /> <br />We also discussed Rice Creek Watershed pe~itting requirements. We <br />indicated we would write a letter if needed to Rice Creek <br />indicating that the site plan, landscaping and drainage are <br />identical for this project as for the pe~it they approved for <br />Everest. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />Diana Farrell, 987 W. County Road C-2 <br /> <br />The Farrells live in and own a home which they have converted to a <br />duplex to house their in-laws, on the corner of County Road C-2 and <br />Riclunond, which is an unbuilt street right-of-way. She and her <br />husband want to add another unit to the house to make ita <br />threeplex and would need to rezone to do so. <br /> <br />The lot the house sits on is 27,000 square feet, more than enough <br />to make two standards lots. It was our opinion that a rezoning to <br />a medium density zoning would not be approved and we suggested they <br />subdivide the lot instead and apply for a rezoning to R-2 for the <br />existing duplex to bring it into compliance. This would give them <br />three units on their property in a much more desirable manner than <br />the threeplex. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.