My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_880713
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1988
>
pm_880713
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:56 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
7/13/1988
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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 />Wednesday, July 13, 1988 <br /> <br />July 13, 1988 special meeting of the Roseville Planning <br />Commission was called to order by Chairperson Pat Johnson at <br />7:01 P.M. <br /> <br />Members Present: <br /> <br />Berry, Stokes, DeBenedet, Goedeke, Moeller <br />Maschka, Johnson <br /> <br />Members Absent: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Staff Present: <br /> <br />Waldron, Dahlgren, Keel, Jopke <br /> <br />council Present: <br /> <br />Kehr (liaison), <br />Mayor Rog <br /> <br />Johnson, <br /> <br />Cushman and <br /> <br />Planninq File 1869 <br /> <br />G.E.M. Investments request for Special Use Permit at 1910 West <br />County Road C. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Dahlgren explained that this item was continued from the <br />July 11, 1988 Council meeting and summarized the proposal. <br /> <br />Finneman pointed out that they believed the variance issue has <br />been resolved and can be considered as part of the PUD and that <br />access to the railroad property is not needed for ponding. <br />ponding will be handled on the applicants property completely. <br />Dahlgren concurred that a variance would not be necessary. <br /> <br />Johnson asked if the drainage plan had been reviewed by the <br />engineering department. Finneman responded that they had talked <br />with the watershed district and that they had informally approved <br />their drainage concept. <br /> <br />Finneman stated that in their opinion, the brick or equal test <br />had been met on the site. Finneman pointed out that the <br />buildings would be located a considerable distance from County <br />Road C, and that front, side and rear yard setback requirements <br />would be exceeded. Finneman pointed out that they would be <br />removing the old buildings on the site and putting up new <br />buildings which would be considerably better than the other <br />buildings in the area which are constructed of metal panels and <br />concrete block. Finneman stated that the building orientation <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.