pm_750702 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-5- Recorrnnendation Mr. Kellett moved and Mrs. Cushing seconded, that Richard Schulze's request for variance to sign setback at 2109 Snelling Avenue be continued until the August 6, 1975 Planning Commission meeting. Roll Call, Ayes: Cushing, G. Johns on, V. Johnson, Ke llet t, Rukavina, Mas te 1 and Graue 1. Nays: None. Planning File 907 - Dayton Development Company request for preliminary plat approval Rosedale Center Third Addition at 1705 Highway 36 Presentat ion Mr. Jim Blomquist, representing Dayton Hudson Corporation indicated that they desire to replat the Rosedale Center Addition because the third major tenant, J. C. Penney's, is now going to begin construction. He indicated that Outlot D as shown on the preliminary plat would be removed and not be a part of the final plat. Discussion Mr. V. Johnson expressed concern about the drainage from the site and its effect on County Ditch No.4. He inquired if the replatting of the property would mean that J. C. Penny would need to concern themselves with less drainage because of the smaller parcel of property involved. Mr. Terry Kramer responded that the location of property lines would have no bearing on the drainage requirements. Recommenda tion Mr. Kellett moved and Mr. Rukavina seconded, that the Commission recommend approval of Dayton Development Company's request for preliminary plat "Rosedale Center Third Addition" at 1705 Highway 36 with the condition that outlot D be removed from the plat. Roll Call, Ayes: Cushing, G. Johnson, V. Johnson, Kellett, Rukavina, Mastel and Grauel. Nays: None. Additional Items Mr. G. Johnson indicated that he would like to have the Corrnnission consider the possibility of exploring a reduction in the lot size requirements for single family homes in the city. He stated that there still is a desire by most people to have a single family home. He suggested thatperhaps Mr. Dahlgren, the City Planner, could make some verbal comnents regarding this matter at the next Planning Conmission meeting and that the Commission could discuss whether the idea should be explored further. The Commission agreed to discuss the matter at the next meeting. Mr. V. Johnson indicated that he was concerned about the fact that our ordinances permit the construction of a pylon sign by each tenant of a building located on a parcel of property. He felt that perhaps this should be limited to one pylon sign for the entire property.