My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02683
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2600
>
pf_02683
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:04:01 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 12:14:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2683
Planning Files - Type
Interim Use Permit
Address
1920 COUNTY ROAD C W
Applicant
MAT PROPERTIES
Status
APPROVED
PIN
092923210005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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 />8 <br /> <br />generate less traffic and involved the storage of fewer smaller trailers than the previous <br />permit, and that because of the grading ofthe site that the back portion of the site may be <br />more visible because it is higher than tIle tront part of the site. <br /> <br />Member Thomas questioned how much of the site was paved, how much of the site <br />would be used for parking, and if there were underground tanks present on the site. Mr. <br />Mischke responded that there was asphalt only in the front parking area, that <br />approximately half of the site would be utilized for parking, and there were no <br />underground tanks on the site. <br /> <br />Member Roberts questioned the five year requirement, and asked if a two or three year <br />time period would be more appropriate. Member Roberts also inquired as to the number <br />of vehicles which would be present 011 the site. Mr, Olson, the proposed new owner, <br />indicated that they own a total of 25 chassis and that 9 to 10 would be a typical number <br />which would be present on the site at anyone time. <br /> <br />Member Thomas questioned the staff concerning the reason for requirements for paving <br />and curb and gutter. The County responded that they are useful in controlJing st0n11 <br />water runoff. <br /> <br />Member Wall asked the type of investment the new owner would be making into the <br />property. Mr. Olson responded that they would invest in sodding and other <br />improvements to insure a good looking site. Member Wall stated that he be looking for a <br />commitment to clean up the front area and liked the proposed fence design. <br /> <br />Chairman Wietecki closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Chainnan Wietecki stated that a three year interim use permit would be prefelTed and that <br />there be a commitment to keep the front yard maintained. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Th ove irman Wietecki seconded to recommend City <br />Council approval of a five year interim use rmit with the following conditions: <br /> <br />I. That a stained, wood screen fence be constructed in frol1t of the vehicle storage <br />area, west of the driveway. <br />2. That a landscape plan be submitted and approved by city staff which includes <br />evergreen planting materials. <br />3. That the parking area in trout of the building be repaved. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: Rengel, Thomas, Wall! Harms, Roberts, Sandstrom, Wietecki. <br /> <br />Nays: None. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.