Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Roseville Planning Commission Minutes <br />February 5, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />Planning File 1643 . <br />Ordinance Amendment. Construction of principal structures on major <br />thoroughfares. <br /> <br />DeBenedet discussed the proposed language, and pointed out that <br />it was his desire that the language, with respect to the <br />amendment, relate to existing structures. <br /> <br />Dressler stated that she had a number of concerns in trying to <br />force people to modify their existing driveways. Demos pointed <br />out that you could upset the existing landscaping, and also force <br />people to get a variance in a number of instances. <br /> <br />Berry pointed out that the Planning Commission had just approved <br />a internal turnaround on an existing property. Shard low pointed <br />out that the internal driveway, with respect to the previous <br />applicant, was a negotiated issue. <br /> <br />DeBenedet stated that the subdivision language should be changed <br />to reflect the fact that it should apply to lots, not principal <br />structures. <br /> <br />Demos pointed out that she still had a major concern with respect <br />to the impact on existing lots. Shardlow stated that the <br />Planning Commission would have to be careful, in that its <br />comparing aesthetics to health and safety issues. <br /> <br />Dressler pointed out that the Planning Commission had just <br />started dealing with this issue, it should be cautious, and <br />watch how the process develops over time. <br /> <br />DeBenedet moved, Berry seconded, that the Subdivision Amendment <br />state that: when a new lot or lots are created, contiguous to <br />major thoroughfares, as indicated in the City's major <br />thoroughfare plan, driveways to such lots shall be designed so as <br />to provide a turnaround facility within the lot to eliminate the <br />need to back a vehicle into the right-of-way of a major <br />thoroughfare. <br /> <br />Discussion <br />Wi ski pointed out there have been approximately sixteen times <br />that this type of issue has been addressed. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: <br />Nays: <br /> <br />DeBenedet, Berry, Moeller, and Wiski. <br />Dressler. <br /> <br />DeBenedet then moved, Berry seconded, a motion that the subdivision <br />component of the modified ordinance be approved. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: <br />Nays: <br /> <br />DeBenedet, Berry, Moeller, and Wiski. <br />Dressler. <br />