My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_890301
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1989
>
pm_890301
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/3/2013 9:29:04 AM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:38:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/1/1989
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.
/
11
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# 7 <br /> <br />Wednesday, March 1, 1989 <br /> <br />Berry moved and Goedeke seconded to recommend approval of an <br />ordinance to allow outside merchandising and display as a use by <br />special use permit in the B-2 and B-3 districts using the <br />criteria listed in the staff report. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />DeBenedet, Berry, <br />Moeller, Johnson <br /> <br />Goedeke, <br /> <br />stokes, <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Planninq File 1912 <br /> <br />Subdivision Ordinance Amendment concerning land dedication <br />requirements. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Dahlgren summarized the reasons for the proposed ordinance change <br />and the proposed land dedication requirements for various land <br />uses. <br /> <br />Stokes stated that he liked the ordinance but would like to see <br />the per unit fees reversed for multi family and single family so <br />that multi family pays more than single family. Stokes added <br />that this would encourage single family development instead of <br />multi family development. <br /> <br />Dahlgren replied that the ordinance <br />up because if you add up the fees <br />have to pay, there would be a <br />apartments. <br /> <br />makes sense the way it is set <br />that a typical project would <br />heavy load on mUlti-family <br /> <br />DeBenedet testified that the decision whether cash or land is <br />required, should be a City decision. Dahlgren answered that the <br />enabling legislation clearly makes that decision a City decision. <br /> <br />Berry stated that it was appropriate for the Council to <br />reestablish fees to keep figures up to date. <br /> <br />George Reiling pointed out that the Council in the past, when <br />they passed the original bond issue, stated that there would be <br />no need for 10% dedication requirement. Reiling stated that <br />there was a moral issue here and a promise made by the Council. <br />Reiling said that if the 10% dedication is passed, the City would <br />be a hypocrite. Reiling sta~ed that the ordinance change should <br />not be passed and that there were other ways to raise the <br />necessary funds. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.