My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_890906
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1989
>
pm_890906
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:07 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:38:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/6/1989
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.
/
18
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 />Paget#10 <br /> <br />Wednesday, September 6, 1989 <br /> <br />Mrs. Owens stated she did not like the proposal because traffic <br />and drainage issues. <br /> <br />Shawn Rogers, 465 Woodruff, stated that he was concerned about <br />fill destroying trees and that the wooded area is the reason they <br />were attracted to the area. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Johnson asked if there was support to continue this matter to <br />gi ve the developer the opportunity to come up with a different <br />proposal. <br /> <br />Goedeke questioned if the 70% rule would be changed if the lot is <br />changed. Dahlgren stated that the proposed change invalidates <br />the 70% rule. <br /> <br />Goedeke testified that there was no way he could approve this <br />proposal because it is too non-conforming and too many variances <br />necessary. <br /> <br />Goedeke added that one house might work on the site. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that in her opinion the Commission should either <br />deny the proposal or continue the matter to allow time for a new <br />proposal. <br /> <br />Berry stated that the site is too small for two houses. Berry <br />said it would not be reasonable to deny all use of the property <br />but she could not support the project as is. <br /> <br />Maschka stated he can't support the project because of potential <br />drainage problems and asked what the impact of denial would be. <br />Dahlgren replied that denial is for the variance and lot division <br />and not all development of the site. Dahlgren stated he believed <br />that one house would meet the 70% rule and that the minor <br />variance process could be used for setback variances if the <br />neighbors agree. <br /> <br />Johnson stated it would be important for the applicant to be <br />talking to the neighbors. <br /> <br />Stokes stated that he would rather table the matter to come up <br />with a drainage plan to meet neighborhood concerns. <br /> <br />stokes moved, Berry seconded to continue consideration of this <br />matter until October 4, 1989. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.