My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_880706
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1988
>
pm_880706
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:55 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
7/6/1988
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.
/
28
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 />Pagett <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />Wednesday, July 6, 1988 <br /> <br />Johnson replied that the Park Board turned down a previous <br />proposal, and not this particular one. <br /> <br />Maschka indicated that he was uncomfortable with the reason for <br />denial. Dahlgren outlined that land use plan and zoning of the <br />site and indicated that the city needs to be comfortable that <br />what is being proposed is right, and that he is not sure if it is <br />the right solution because of the uncertainty of the long term <br />use of the site. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that litigation is a problem. <br /> <br />Dahlgren stated that the city has never taken just a piece of a <br />development, but that they have required a total solution in <br />other cases. Overall plans must be approved even if the <br />development occurs in phases. <br /> <br />Dunwell pointed out that the comprehensive plan amendment is just <br />a guide while zoning is the law. Dahlgren responded that under <br />Minnesota laws that the comprehensive plan amendment is needed <br />first and that the zoning occurs afterwards and must be <br />consistent with the comprehensive plan amendment. <br /> <br />Berry called the question. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Maschka, Moeller, Berry, DeBenedet, <br />Johnson, Goedeke <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />stokes <br /> <br />Berry moved, Debenedet seconded to recommend denial of the <br />preliminary plat because the proposal was not consistent with the <br />city's comprehensive plan, that the applicant failed to provide a <br />long term plan for the total si te, that the sanitary sewer <br />location is not acceptable to staff, and that the applicant has <br />requested only low density on a portion of the site, and not on <br />the total site. <br /> <br />stokes asked if the comprehensive plan change has to be requested <br />by the applicant before action is taken by the commission. <br /> <br />DeBenedet pointed out that the change was discussed with the <br />applicant. <br /> <br />Dahlgren stated that the correct procedure was being followed. <br />Roll Call: Ayes: Maschka, Moeller, Berry, DeBenedet, <br />Stokes, Johnson, DeBenedet <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.