Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Roseville Planning Commission Minutes <br />October 7, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: Johnson, Maschka, Berry, Stokes, DeBenedet, <br />Goedeke and Moeller. <br />Nays: None. <br /> <br />Planning File 1795 <br />Paster request for variance at 1739 N. Lexington. <br /> <br />Presentation <br />Dahlgren discussed the site and pointed out that the ordinance <br />requires a fence between 6 feet and 6.5 as a lnaximum for <br />screening purposes. Through negotiations between the developer <br />and the neighborhood, it was agreed that 7 feet would be more <br />appropriate. Therefore, the variance is for a six inch height <br />modification. <br /> <br />Dahlgren also pointed out that 16.5 feet of right-of-way required <br />to be dedicated to the City has not occurred as of yet. <br /> <br />Johnson proceeded to enter a petition of the neighbors supporting <br />the variance into the record. <br /> <br />The representative from Paster Enterprises pointed out that the <br />easement is simply awaiting signature at this point in time. <br /> <br />Stokes <br />replied <br />screen. <br /> <br />asked why 7 feet was chosen. The Paster representative <br />that the neighbors thought it would provide a better <br /> <br />Goedeke asked what type of fence was agreed upon by the neighbors <br />and the developers. The Paster representative stated that a <br />solid wood fence in a natural color was agreed upon. <br /> <br />Goedeke moved, Berry seconded, that the Paster request for <br />variance at 1739 N. Lexington be approved with the condition that <br />the 16.5 easement be granted to the City. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: Johnson, Maschka, Berry, Stokes, DeBenedet, <br />Goedeke and Moeller. <br />Nays: None. <br /> <br />Planning File 1796 <br />Villa Park (Housing Alliance) request for variance at 500 West <br />County Road B. <br /> <br />Presentation <br />Dahlgren showed the location, and pointed out that thirty feet is <br />the required setback. However, a ten foot setback is being <br />requested in this case. Based on the contour of the land, the <br />thirty foot setback would essentially hide the proposed sign. <br /> <br />Dahlgren pointed out that the sign was basically a monument type <br />sign, thirty-two square feet. <br /> <br />Janisch stated that there still is a requirement for an easement <br />for the sidewalk in this area. <br />