My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_861001
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1986
>
pm_861001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:46 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/1/1986
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.
/
13
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 1, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />The architect from the project proceeded to explain his landscape <br />plan to the Planning Commission members. Moeller pointed out that <br />poured in place curbing was required. <br /> <br />Goedeke asked whether the existing owner supports the project. <br />Matthews replied that the current owners do support the expansion. <br /> <br />Berry, referring to the 1983 approval, asked <br />wasn't to be considered on the north side of the <br />Woodhill. Matthews replied that Group W did not <br />landscaping on the north. <br /> <br />whether planting <br />development along <br />propose to do any <br /> <br />Mildred Jackson, 1000 Woodhill, stated she was opposed to the <br />project, as there is currently too much activity on Woodhill right <br />now. She also asked what additional activity will be occurring in <br />the building. Matthews replied that more administrative <br />activities will occur. Jackson replied she thought it was a <br />mistake to allow this development in 1983, and it is a mistake <br />today. <br /> <br />Wiski asked what the primary hours of operation were at the site. <br />Matthews replied primarily between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., but <br />there are people in the facilities over an eighteen hour time <br />period. <br /> <br />Dahlgren pointed out that this Special Use Permit that is being <br />requested allows moderate impact uses in public schools. A <br />Special Use now is simply required to expand the parking. Mr. <br />Dahlgren also pointed out that all of the landscaping requirements <br />pursuant to the 1983 approval have been met. <br /> <br />Wiski reviewed the twelve items that were included in the 1983 <br />approval, and confirmed the point that these items will still <br />apply, irregardless of what happens with the current request. <br /> <br />Berry asked what the total parking capacity would be after the <br />approval. Matthews replied approximately one hundred thirty-two. <br /> <br />Moeller moved, Goedeke seconded, approval of Group <br />request for Special Use Permit at 934 Woodhill Drive <br />following conditions: <br /> <br />W Cable's <br />with the <br /> <br />1. The drainage and landscape plans be approved by staff. <br /> <br />2. Poured in place curbing is required. <br /> <br />3. That "Right Turn Only" signs be placed at the three driveways. <br /> <br />Berry reiterated the fact that she was very uncomfortable with the <br />three driveway approach. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: <br />Nays: <br /> <br />Moeller, Goedeke, Maschka, Johnson, and Wiski. <br />Berry. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.