My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_850904
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1985
>
pm_850904
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:37 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/4/1985
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.
/
10
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 />Roseville Planning Commission Meeting <br />September 4, 1985 <br /> <br />P~e3 <br /> <br />Mr. DeBenedet asked whether sidewalks were required with respect to this <br />parcel. Mr. Drown replied that the fifty percent (50%) requirement applies. <br /> <br />Mr. DeBenedet inquired as to whether the drainage was proper in the area. Mr. <br />Drown replied that the drain~e drawings had not been included and therefore <br />it was difficult to evaluate. <br /> <br />Mr. Matson asked Mr. Hess what he would do if this project was not approved. <br />Mr. Hess replied that he would simply fix up the old building and work within <br />those parameters. <br /> <br />Mr. Wiski asked Mr. Hess if he was willing to provide more information such as <br />site plan elevation, drain~e, etc. Mr. Hess replied no, he would prefer to <br />have the variances first and subsequently formulate the required drawings. <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren again replied that it was difficult to get an assessment of what <br />is really occuring on this site in view of the fact that a number of the <br />drawings are indeed missing. <br /> <br />Mr. Hess asked why he should put up sidewalks when other new buildings in the <br />area have not. Mr. Drown replied that sidewalk funds are often escrowed for <br />future development. <br /> <br />Mr. Frank Whaley of 1601 Roselawn asked if the parking was appropriate. Mr. <br />Dahlgren again replied that it depends on use. <br /> <br />Mr. Harold Worschak of 201 McCarron Street said that he supports the project. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />Ms. Dressler moved to deny the variances, seconded by Mueller. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Mr. DeBenedet stated he would like to see more information particularly with <br />respect to drainage and the exterior of the building and thus Mr. Hess should <br />have a chance to submit improved plans. Ms. Johnson stated she would like to <br />see more information on this site as did Mr. Wiski. Mr. Matson stated that <br />there were many more questions to be answered on this project. Mr. Mueller <br />stated that this proposal should be carried over to the next meeting as very <br />little information was actually provided. Mr. Matson asked what Mr. Hess <br />would prefer to have happen and Mr. Hess requested that the proposal be <br />tabled. Mr. Matson moved to table this request until the October meeting <br />which was seconded by Ms. Johnson. No discussion ensued. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.