My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_880907
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1988
>
pm_880907
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:57 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:38:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/7/1988
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.
/
13
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# 6 <br /> <br />Wednesday, September 7, 1988 <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />DeBenedet, Berry, Goedeke, <br />Maschka, Moeller, Johnson <br /> <br />stokes, <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />DeBenedet moved and Berry seconded to recommend approval of a <br />special use permit for Planned unit Development and Preliminary <br />Plat subject to the following conditions: <br /> <br />1. That the developer enter into a development agreement with <br />the city. <br /> <br />2. That approval is contingent upon satisfactory completion of <br />the required environmental assessment worksheet process. <br /> <br />3. That final engineering and landscape details be approved by <br />staff. <br /> <br />4. That the property owner agree not to oppose the possible <br />location of County Road C-2 adjacent to Lot 6. <br /> <br />stokes questioned if the cul-de-sac street should be specified in <br />the motion. DeBenedet replied that the plan choose the cul-de- <br />sac and development is contingent upon that plan. <br /> <br />Berry inquired if the motion should be amended to include a <br />traffic signal at Woodhill and Lexington. DeBenedet replied that <br />this was less than of an issue with the reduced density of the <br />project and pointed out that there is a problem with the <br />sequencing of the light at County Road C and Lexington. <br /> <br />Keel agreed to check with the County about possible changes to <br />the sequencing of that light. <br /> <br />Goedeke questioned whether the commission should include a <br />condition specifying that there be no restaurant in the <br />commercial portion of the project. Johnson replied that code <br />would not allow it because of parking requirements. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />DeBenedet, Berry, Goedeke, <br />Maschka, Moeller, Johnson <br /> <br />stokes, <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Johnson called a recess at 8:55pm. <br /> <br />Johnson reconvened the meeting at 9:05pm. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.