My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01809
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1800-1899
>
pf_01809
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/21/2024 11:44:54 AM
Creation date
2/21/2024 11:43:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1809
Planning Files - Type
Variance
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
PDF
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 <br />December 2, 1987 <br />Goedeke asked how many tenants would be in the building. Johnson <br />replied that this is an allowable use under the existing zoning <br />ordinance. The total square footage will remain the same. <br />Stokes asked Mr. Dahlgren to again delineate the City setback <br />requirements, which Dahlgren proceeded to do. <br />DeBenedet asked how the power poles would be addressed that are <br />currently in the middle of the sidewalk. Janisch replied that <br />they would be gone next year. <br />DeBenedet moved, Berry seconded, that Kraus -Anderson's request <br />for variances at 2057 North Snelling Avenue be approved with the <br />following conditions: <br />1. That the variances apply only to the existing building. <br />2. That a landscape and screeningplan (including the fence to <br />r <br />the west) be approved b1 staff, and coordinated with the <br />impacted neighbors. <br />3. That a plan for wheel stops on the north side of the lot be <br />developed and subject to staff approval, and coordinated with <br />the impacted neighbor. <br />Goedeke stated that he was uncomfortable with this variance, and <br />that it was essentially an afterthought. <br />Johnson agreed, but pointed out that this was a positive <br />situation, that it cleaned up the existing lot and, in addition, <br />the Planning Commission was limited in its purview in this case <br />based on the recommendation by the City Attorney. <br />Cushman stated her concerns with respect to the need to upgrade <br />redevelopment sites. <br />DeBenedet proceeded to clarify his motion in which he stated that <br />the plans should be coordinated with the neighbors, but not <br />subject to the neighbors approval. The plans are still subject <br />to staff approval, however. <br />DeBenedet proceeded <br />motion. <br />to explain his reasons for supporting the <br />Stokes stated his concern <br />moved farther to the west. <br />site, and it didn't appear <br />to the west. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
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).