Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Roseville Planning Commission Minutes <br />June 3, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 11 <br /> <br />Berry asked about the status of the sign for the area. Bartlett <br />stated that the sign would be within the code, and if problems <br />occurred and a variance was requested, he would appear before the <br />Planning Commission. <br /> <br />DeBenedet stated his concern with respect to the rear area not <br />being expanded for storage use without any type of paving. <br /> <br />Berry asked as to whether the developer would meet with staff to <br />upgrade the landscape plan. Bartlett replied that he would. <br /> <br />DeBenedet moved, Maschka seconded, Breckenridge Development <br />request for Special Use Permit at 2775 Long Lake Road be approved <br />with the following conditions: <br /> <br />1. That sidewalks be constructed along the frontage of Long Lake <br />Road. <br /> <br />2. That engineering and landscape plans be subject to staff <br />approval. <br /> <br />3. That building materials be adjusted as may be mutually agreed <br />upon by staff, but at a minimum, tip up panels with exposed <br />aggregate are required. <br /> <br />4. That the rear area not be used for any storage unless paved <br />and curbed. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: Stokes, DeBenedet, Goedeke, Moeller, Berry, <br />Maschka, and Johnson. <br />Nays: None. <br /> <br />Planning File 1759 <br />JLN Development Company request for Comprehensive Plan modifica- <br />tion, rezoning, Special Use Permit, and variances at 2196, 2204, <br />2208, 2218, 2234, 2236, 2240, 2270, and 2280 Hamline Avenue. <br /> <br />Based on the written request of the applicants, this item was <br />continued to the July 1, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. <br /> <br />Planning File 1760 <br />Con/Spec Corporation request for variance at 2310 County Road D. <br /> <br />Presentation <br />Dahlgren discussed <br />pointed out that <br />versus a thirty <br />seventy-five feet; <br />hundred feet. <br /> <br />the location of the proposed development, and <br />the request is for a twenty-two foot setback <br />foot setback. The existing right-of-way is <br />thus, the true setback is in the range of one <br /> <br />Janisch stated that the applicant will need to get a permit from <br />MN/DOT if it expects to drain in the MN/DOT right-of-way area. <br /> <br />Moeller asked for clarification of the parking situation. <br />