Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION M~~TING <br />Wednesday, February 4, 1987 <br /> <br />The February 4, 1987, regular meeting of the Roseville <br />Commission was called to order by Chairperson Pat Johnson <br />p.m. <br /> <br />Planning <br />at 7:30 <br /> <br />Members Present: DeBenedet, Stokes, Maschka, Goedeke, Moeller, Berry, <br />and Johnson. <br /> <br />Staff Present: Dahlgren, Janisch, and Waldron. <br /> <br />Council Present: Cushman (liaison), Kehr, Wiski, and Johnson. <br /> <br />Approval of Minutes <br />Goedeke moved, Maschka seconded, that the minutes of the regular <br />meeting of the Roseville Planning Commission meeting held Wednesday, <br />January 7, 1987, be approved. <br /> <br />Abstain: <br />Nays: <br /> <br />Stokes, Maschka, Goedeke, Moeller, Berry, and <br />Johnson. <br />DeBenedet. <br />None. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: <br /> <br />Planning File 1719 <br />Steve Saunders request for Special Use Permit and variance at 2087 <br />Snelling Avenue. <br /> <br />Presentation <br />Dahlgren discussed the general area where this project was proposed, <br />and pointed out how Kentucky Fried Chicken would be leasing the <br />site. Mr. Dahlgren explained how a sale in the area would trigger <br />an option that McDonald's has in place if the property was not <br />leased. Dahlgren pointed out the sign variance would be for 14.5 <br />feet versus the required 30 feet, which is in line with the other <br />signs adjacent to this property. Mr. Dahlgren stated it may not be <br />appropriate to attach the typical Kentucky Fried Chicken "bucket" to <br />the sign. <br /> <br />Janisch discussed the drainage modifications in the area that would <br />hook up with the new Snelling road development. <br /> <br />Tom Dunwell stated that they would prefer to have the sidewalk <br />requirements waived, pointing out how difficult it could be to <br />develop a new sidewalk in this area after Snelling is constructed. <br />Johnson pointed out that building the sidewalk could be waived <br />initially if the appropriate money were deposited with the City. <br /> <br />Dunwell stated that the developer still would like the sidewalk <br />waived, and does want the "bucket" on the sign. <br /> <br />Maschka asked for a clarification of the lighting of the area, and <br />whether the bucket was lit. <br /> <br />DeBenedet wanted to know how the sidewalk would tie into the State <br />plans. Janisch stated that the State has not, as yet, addressed the <br />sidewalk in the area, but it would be appropriate to secure an <br />easement for a pathway. <br />