Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />page#12 <br /> <br />Wednesday, April 6, 1988 <br /> <br />city's planning consultant and that the proposal was bad <br />planning. <br /> <br />Berry concurred that this was bad planning. <br /> <br />Stokes testified that it would be difficult to deny the plat <br />because it meets minimum requirements. <br /> <br />Moeller said this was bad planning, but the Commission is in a <br />box because the proposal meets minimum requirements. Johnson <br />countered that the Commission was not in a box and has a <br />responsibility to future owners in the area. <br /> <br />DeBenedet stated there were better long term solutions available <br />to benefit community and that we need to maintain the park. <br /> <br />Goedeke pointed out that only 30% of the land would be planned. <br />Goedeke stated that the whole parcel should be planned at once. <br /> <br />Berry moved and Goedeke seconded to recommend denial of the <br />preliminary plat. <br /> <br />Waldron summarized possible findings of fact which included that <br />the park is too small, is inadequate and unworkable, the plan is <br />only a short range solution for the site, the plan does not <br />address the site in a comprehensive manner, and the plan does not <br />adequately protect prospective homeowners purchasing the property <br />as part of the new plat. <br /> <br />Berry and Goedeke agreed to include these findings in their <br />motion. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br />Nays: <br /> <br />DeBenedet, Berry, Goedeke, Johnson <br />Stokes, Maschka, Moeller <br /> <br />Planninq File 1831 <br /> <br />Fine Associates/Investor Savings Bank request for a special use <br />permit, PUD plan amendment and division of lot. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Dahlgren summarized the location and history of the site, <br />indicating that the PUD amendment was necessary because the <br />location of the proposed bank building and the parking layout <br />have changed from the originally approved PUD. Dahlgren outlined <br />the proposed new bank building, and indicated that it was a <br />workable plan, but that there were some issues to be resolved <br />concerning the signage. The proposed time/temperature message <br />sign on the canopy over the drive up teller facility was a <br />problem because signs were not permitted on canopies, and with <br />