My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_870603
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1987
>
pm_870603
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:49 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
6/3/1987
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.
/
14
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 />June 3, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />Mary Merabella, of 2801 Victoria, stated she didn't think it was <br />environmentally sound for additional developments on Owasso, and <br />that the traffic in the area is dangerous. <br /> <br />Barry Kylo, across the street, stated that <br />existing ordiances, and talked to City staff, <br />the lot was unbuildable. <br /> <br />he had reviewed <br />and assumed that <br /> <br />Haider stated that if traffic was such a problem, why weren't the <br />trees in the front yard damaged from traffic accidents. <br /> <br />John Appleby, 1215 Sherren, asked what would happen if <br />variance was not granted. Johnson said if it were denied, <br />applicant would have to decide whether he wanted to proceed <br />any litigation, or protest the matter. <br /> <br />the <br />the <br />with <br /> <br />Doug Reynolds stated that this is a major variance, and the <br />Planning Commission should take a close look at it. <br /> <br />Waldron again reiterated that the shoreline elements were not <br />before the Planning Commission and went directly to the Council, <br />even though they substantially impact the decision before the <br />Commission. <br /> <br />Moeller asked if an internal turn around was required on this <br />site. Dahlgren replied that it was. <br /> <br />Goedeke stated his concern with respect to soil borings. <br /> <br />Johnson reminded the Planning Commission members that the motion <br />would be looking at a front yard variance. <br /> <br />Stokes stated his concern about setting a dangerous precedent in <br />this area, and was opposed to it. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that, in her opinion, the site is simply too <br />tight, and not appropriate for development. <br /> <br />Berry moved, Goedeke seconded, that the Haider request for front <br />yard variance at 2790 Victoria Street be denied, based on the <br />finding of fact that the narrowness of the lot precludes proper <br />and safe development. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked about the setbacks to the south of this proposal. <br />Dahlgren replied that to the south the duplexes were in the <br />right-of-way, and the single family home does meet the proper <br />setbacks. <br /> <br />Roll Call: Ayes: <br />Nays: <br /> <br />Abstain: <br /> <br />None. <br />DeBenedet, Goedeke, Moeller, Berry, Maschka, <br />and Johnson. <br />Stokes <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.