My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02792
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2700
>
pf_02792
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:10:42 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 12:41:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2792
Planning Files - Type
Special Use Permit
Address
2215 SNELLING AVE N
Applicant
BERNSTEIN, JEFFREY
Status
DENIED
PIN
102923330004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
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 />~~ <br /> <br />CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES <br />Wednesday, October 11, 1995 <br /> <br />Chairperson Harms closed the hearing. <br /> <br />MOTION: Member Sandstrom moved, seconded by Member Thein to recommend <br />approval of the Car-X request for conditional use permit to establish an <br />auto repair operation at 2215 Snelling Avenue North with conditions a-d as <br />listed in the staff report: <br /> <br />a. Catch basins need to be placed on both sides of the driveway <br />entrance to pick up the drainage before it runs into the City street. <br />b. The existing fire hydrant at the northwest corner of the lot will have <br />to be relocated to the south or a paved area rrom the parking lot to <br />the hydrant will have to be provided for fire truck operations. <br />c. A sidewalk along Snelling rrontage road is required. <br />d. That overstory landscape materials be provided along the south <br />perimeter of the parking lot. <br /> <br />and with condition <br /> <br />e. That the staff adhere to Section 1010.09 regarding landscaping and <br />screemng. <br /> <br />Member Harms stated this was a good project which would be an improvement to the <br />vacant building. The motion carried 4-1 with Member Wall opposing. <br /> <br />Member Wall stated he opposed the proposal because he felt that this was not the best use <br />of the site. He challenged the staff and the applicant to promote the site, and expressed <br />concern over which criteria would be used to promote the site. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.