My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_710505
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
197x
>
1971
>
pm_710505
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:31:47 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:12:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
5/5/1971
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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 />= 3~ <br /> <br />There was discussion amongst the Planning Commission as to what other type of develop- <br />rent could be built on this parcel other than multiple 0 <br /> <br />The Commission agreed that the plans should be relooked at, done on a more professional <br />basis including a more detailed landscaping site pIano <br /> <br />Recorrunendation <br /> <br />Mrso Demos moved and Mr, Edlund seconded, that the Commission recOI1'lIl'end that the request <br />for rezoning from R~l to R=3 and special use permit at 2995 Troseth Road be laid over <br />until the June 1971 Planning Commission reeting and that the developer bring in more <br />detailed plans as recoIl'llOOnded by the Planner 0 Roll Call, Ayes: Pope, Edlund, Demos, <br />Eagles, Jolmson, Kellett and ~mbrezo Nays: None. <br /> <br />Planning File 619=71 = Rosedale Center request for directional billboardso <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Mr. Jim Emerson of Rosedale Center presented a proposed plan for the directional signs <br />which he felt were needed to direct people to the Centero He stated there were approxi- <br />mately 30,000 people a day going to the Center and they receive munerous calls from <br />people saying that they have a hard time finding the Centero <br /> <br />Mro ~mbrez called attention to the Plannerv s reconnrendation in his report concerning <br />the word "Center" and also the size of the letters 0 <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Mr. McVey, 1784 Bruce Avenue, questioned what existing signs were on 111 36 directing <br />peop Ie to the Cen te r 0 <br /> <br />Recorrunendation <br /> <br />Pope moved and Edlund seconded, that the Conmrission recoJl1lrend approval of the request <br />by Rosedale Center for the placing of directional signs on the shopping center property <br />but that the word "Center" be eliminated and that the signs be reduced in size accord~ <br />ingly. The plans in the file are indicated Exhibit #1 and #2. Roll Call, Ayes~ Pope, <br />Edlund, Demos, Eagles, Jolmson, Kellett and Membrezo Nays: None. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission also instructed Mr, Emerson to submit to the Cotmcil the criteria <br />used in determining the size of the letters necessary for theirp.;roposed directional signso <br /> <br />Planning File 621= 71 = Ronald Larson request for special use permit for restaurant in <br />B=lB District = 1875 \Vest Peritreter Road <br /> <br />Planning File 622=71 ~ Dan Dolan request for special use permit for restaurant in B~lB <br />District at 1865 West Perireter Road <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />These two requests were heard by the Planning Commission at the same titre since the <br />restaurants were to be located on adjoining propertieso <br /> <br />Dan Dolan, representing Hardee's Restaurant, and }'1ro Ron Larson, representing Mro Steak <br />Restaurant appeared and presented their proposed site pIano The ~1r, Steak building would <br />be on the east side of the lot, acconvnodating approximately 126 customers and the Hardee v s <br />Restaurant would be on the west side of the lot and acconunodating approximately 100 <br />seated customerso The proposed site plan indicated 45 parking spaces for each building <br />for a total of 90, while the ordinance required 760 The buildings would be on separate <br />parcels of land but would be adjacent to one another and share their drivewayso <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.