My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_880504
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1988
>
pm_880504
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:54 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
5/4/1988
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.
/
16
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 <br /> <br />Page://: <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />Wednesday, May 4, 1988 <br /> <br />planting until such time that it is needed for a pathway in the <br />future. <br /> <br />George Letendre questioned what effect the pathway easement would <br />have on setbacks, indicated that he doesn't favor the easements <br />in general, and that they might have an adverse effect on the <br />property which may not be acceptable to the mortgage holder. <br />Letendre stated that the easement might be okay along County Road <br />B-2, but he has serious concerns about the easement on Prior <br />Avenue. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked about the status of a narrow 7 foot strip of <br />land on Prior Avenue. Honchell indicated that the strip was a <br />separate parcel but that the ownership was unclear. <br /> <br />DeBenedet questioned if there was adequate parking. Dahlgren <br />indicated that it was adequate at this time and that as the rest <br />of the site become similarly rezoned and uses change that a <br />careful watch of the parking would be necessary. DeBenedet <br />pointed out that the rezoning was separate from site plan <br />approval and if a different use located there parking problems <br />could develop. <br /> <br />Letendre commented that this commercial rezoning was an <br />experiment, that they hoped to extend the amount of commercial in <br />the future if this experiment was successful. <br /> <br />DeBenedet suggested that the dedication of the pathway easement <br />was appropriate based on the other development that will occur in <br />the area and on the investment the city has made in the area <br />which will benefit development in the area. <br /> <br />Dahlgren stated that the pathway easement may be appropriate in <br />just the portion of the property which is being rezoned at this <br />time. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Berry moved, Goedeke seconded to recommend that the property be <br />rezoned from I-I to B-4. <br /> <br />Roll call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Goedeke, Stokes, Maschka, Moeller, <br />DeBenedet, Berry, Johnson <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Berry moved, <br />special use <br />conditions: <br /> <br />DeBenedet <br />permit for <br /> <br />seconded to recommend approval of the <br />site plan approval with the following <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.