My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_851002
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1985
>
pm_851002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:38 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/2/1985
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.
/
12
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 Minutes <br />october 2, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 11 <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: Matson, Johnson, Mueller, Berry, DeBenedet, <br />Dressler, and Wiski. <br />Nays: None. <br /> <br />Planning File 1620 <br />B-Dale Properties, sign variance request at 694-708 West County <br />Road B. <br /> <br />Presentation <br />Mr. Blais pointed out that this was a nonconforming sign, and is <br />placed nineteen feet back as opposed to the required thirty feet. <br />The owners wish to expand the sign that is within the required <br />square footage. Mr. Blais pointed out there are extenuating <br />circumstances, and the sign is thirty-five feet back from the <br />curb line. <br /> <br />Mr. Simonson, one of the owners, stated that the sign was placed <br />in 1979. To move it back within the requirement would place it <br />in the circulation pattern in the parking lot. <br /> <br />Wiski asked for additional information regarding the parking <br />problem, and asked why one footing couldn't be moved, and one <br />remain the same, thus essentially moving the sign back. Simonson <br />replied that wasn't practical, and they would rather forget about <br />the reader board than proceed with moving the sign back. <br /> <br />Matson stated he thought the sign was basically fine as located, <br />and that the particular location does create a hardship. Dressler <br />agreed with Matson that there were extenuating circumstances, and <br />that a hardship does exist. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br />Matson moved, seconded by Dressler, to approve the request for <br />variance. <br /> <br />Discussion <br />None. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: Matson, Johnson, Mueller, Berry, DeBenedet, <br />Dressler. <br />Nays: wiski. <br /> <br />Planning File 1626 <br />Zoning amendment, liquor store parking. <br /> <br />Presentation <br />Mr. Blais explained the history of this particular amendment, as <br />it related to previous Council action, concerning the Graham <br />Liquor Store request. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.