My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_880106
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1988
>
pm_880106
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:51 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
1/6/1988
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.
/
17
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 COHMISSION <br /> <br />Page # 15 <br /> <br />Wednesday, January 6, 1988 <br />a decision can be made with respect to this project. <br /> <br />Maschka inquired whether or not the city should require that <br />elevation drawings be provided, and suggested that this be added <br />to the motion. DeBenedet accepted the amendment. DeBenedet <br />questioned what assurance does the city have that the development <br />will occur as shown on the drawings. Dahlgren responded that the <br />owner has a right to develop the property, and the city has to <br />have faith in the developer to complete the project as proposed. <br />The owner could build something different. The city could change <br />its ordinance to require compliance. <br /> <br />Maschka indicated that in light of this, that elevation drawings <br />would not be necessary. DeBenedet agreed. <br /> <br />Cushman indicated a number of concerns over the site, concerning <br />traffic, truck traffic, and the need to protect residential in <br />the area, and the availability of better sites, and the timing <br />concerns. She indicated that more traffic information is needed, <br />as well as a commitment from the post office. <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />Moeller, DeBenedet, Berry, Goedeke, <br />Maschka, Stokes <br />None <br /> <br />Roll Call, <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Planning File 1816 <br /> <br />Norm Vinnes request for division of existing platted lot at 28ll <br />N. Oxford. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Dahlgren outlined the location and general dimensions of the lot <br />as well as the lots in the surrounding area. The site is in a 5 <br />ft. set back area, and there is an existing single family <br />dwelling on the lot. The proposed division is to provide a 67 <br />ft. wide lot on the south, which would include the existing <br />house, and the new 65 foot lot would be created on the North. A <br />new house would be constructed on the new lot, which would meet <br />the 10 ft. side yard requirement for new lots. The existing <br />house would become a non-conforming structure because it would <br />not meet the 10 ft. requirement. City ordinances allows lots to <br />be platted with widths less than 85 ft. if they are in character <br />with the surrounding area. The proposed lots would be smaller <br />than any lots in the surrounding area, but the existing large lot <br />is even more out of character. The proposed lot split does not <br />require platting. <br /> <br />Vinnes indicated that only one tree would have to be moved for <br />this project. He indicated that he wished to build a house for <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.