My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_850102
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1985
>
pm_850102
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:35 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
1/2/1985
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.
/
7
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 />Planning Commission Min. ,es - January 2, 1985 <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />Planning File 1568~ Cont'd: <br /> <br />Dressler indicated she felt the sign seems reasonable. <br /> <br />Matson indicated the sign does not seem to have a negative impact on anyone, and <br />seems reasonable. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked whether the City has received any complaints since the sign has been <br />installed. Moorse indicated there have been no complaints. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />Dressler moved, and Johnson seconded that the Planning COIDnlission recommend approval <br />of M. T. Realty Corporation's request for variance to allow a sign with 167 square <br />feet and 35 feet in height at 2350 Cleveland Avenue. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: Dressler, Johnson, Matson, Berry and DeBenedet. <br /> <br />Nays: None. <br /> <br />Planning File 1567 - Kenneth Schwalbach request for variances at 2611 Rice Street. <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren indicated the applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the <br />existing building to be used for storage. The proposed addition requires the site to <br />be brought into conformance with City Code. The existing building is two feet from <br />the north property line, and one foot from the west property line. Mr. Dahlgren <br />indicated there are two concerns related to the proposal:: <br /> <br />1. Additional right-of-way is required to provide 49.5 feet total right-of-way. <br />This would move the right-of-way beyond the existing sign. <br />2. The parking should be redesigned so that the site will provide the amount of <br />parking called for by ordinance. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Dressler asked whether a sidewalk is required, due to the proposed addition. Drown <br />indicated if the addition does not exceed 50% of the original building, a sidewalk is <br />not required. <br /> <br />Matson asked whether the exterior material will be the same as on the existing <br />building. Mr. Schwalbach indicated it would be. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked why the addition is not being added closer to the rear of the <br />property. Mr. Schwalbach indicated the soil is very poor to the west. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.