Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />Paget 3 <br /> <br />Wednesday, July 13, 1988 <br /> <br />of this project, that a condition be included that final approval <br />of the drainage plan be required by engineering staff. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that a proposal should get Rice Creek approval <br />first. <br /> <br />Berry stated that she was not comfortable because there were <br />still unresolved issues. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Berry stated that the alternatives were to delay the project, or <br />to recommend denial. <br /> <br />Johnson asked if the applicant had been informed about <br />ordinance standards for mini-storage. Dahlgren replied <br />staff had discussed the standards with the applicant. <br /> <br />the <br />that <br /> <br />DeBenedet stated that there were issues not answered. The <br />commission was looking for specific finish which has not been <br />provided and the drainage plan has been totally resolved. <br />DeBenedet suggested that the applicant come back next month with <br />a specific answer on the exterior finish and with approval from <br />Rice Creek. DeBenedet suggested that the applicant be asked if <br />they would like the commission to move this on or to delay it a <br />month. Finneman responded that they believed they have met the <br />issues and would like it moved on. <br /> <br />Berry moved, DeBenedet seconded to recommend denial of G.E.M. <br />Investments request for a Special Use Permit for a Planned unit <br />Development car wash use/mini-storage use at 1910 West County <br />Road C based on the finding that the applicant has failed to <br />conform to city ordinance requirements for exterior building <br />material of brick or equal and to provide a proper drainage plan. <br />Stokes indicated he would oppose the motion because the proposal <br />meets ordinances and engineering would review the drainage plan <br />and give it final approval. <br /> <br />Moeller stated he would oppose the motion because the final <br />drainage details could be worked out with staff and the materials <br />used would appear to be brick. <br /> <br />Goedeke stated that the material would meet city specifications. <br /> <br />Johnson testified that she could not support the development as <br />it now stands, that the it would not meet the intent of the <br />ordinance and would set a bad precedent for future development. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Maschka, DeBenedet, Berry, Johnson <br />