Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Roseville Planning Commission Minutes <br />February 5,1986 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />Discussion <br />DeBenedet asked again if the turnaround was a requirement for <br />both lots. Berry agreed that yes, it should take place on both <br />lots if the applicant was agreeable. Shardlow replied that it <br />was his assumption that it should include both lots. <br /> <br />Dressler stated her concern with the five foot sideyard setback. <br />Wiski replied that this five foot setback is acceptable, because <br />of the pre-1959 plat. <br /> <br />Honchell proceeded to show how the angled lot line could work if <br />the applicants were interested in reviewing that possibility as <br />opposed to the jag. Ms. Elfstrom pointed out that she was <br />concerned that the angle would create problems for their new <br />housing site. Dressler replied that one could leave the front <br />jag alone, and simply angle the line towards the rear of the lot. <br />Wiski proceeded to point out how an angled line would impact the <br />total lot size. Ms. Elfstrom replied that she still prefers <br />utilizing the jag as proposed in the motion. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked if the five foot setback created a non-conforming <br />lot. Shardlow replied that it would be a legal lot, with a non- <br />conforming use. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: <br />Nays: <br /> <br />DeBenedet, Dressler, Berry, Moeller, and Wiski. <br />None. <br /> <br />Planning File 1641 <br />Fairview Development Company request for sign variance at 1928-48 <br />West County Road C. <br /> <br />Shardlow pointed out the location, and discussed how the 100 feet <br />of railroad right-of-way creates a problem with respect to the <br />sign location. <br /> <br />Mr. Lund pointed out that if the setback were at the required 40 <br />feet, his sign would actually be 140 feet from the street. <br /> <br />Discussion <br />Moeller asked what would happen with the trees in the area. Lund <br />replied that the existing trees would remain as they are today. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br />Dressler moved, DeBenedet seconded, that the Fairview Development <br />Company request for sign variance at 1928-48 West County Road C <br />be approved. <br /> <br />Discussion <br />Wi ski pointed out that, in his op1n1on, the railroad right-of-way <br />certainly creates a hardship that justifies the variance. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: <br />Nays: <br /> <br />DeBenedet, Dressler, Berry, Moeller, and Wi ski. <br />None. <br />