My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_891004
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1989
>
pm_891004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:08 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:38:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/4/1989
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.
/
9
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# 5 <br /> <br />Wednesday, October 4, 1989 <br /> <br />differently. Stokes stated that the dedication should be on the <br />parcel in question only and that Ramsey County could take action <br />in the future to get the additional dedication on the north <br />parcel. Stokes concurred with Mr. Reinhardt's feelings that he <br />could put a driveway in front and develop this as a separate <br />parcel but that is not appropriate. <br /> <br />Johnson asked if the City would be responsible for the cost of <br />the additional right-of-way in the future. Keel responded that <br />that was correct. <br /> <br />Johnson testified that she supported the dedication on both <br />parcels and to put funds in escrow for the sidewalk. Johnson <br />pointed out that the applicant can decide if he wants to move <br />forward or not. Johnson said that the City needs to apply its <br />requirements consistently and that the citizens of the City <br />should not have to pay for the additional dedication. <br /> <br />Maschka asked if the site was on the City's pathway system. <br />Johnson replied that it was. <br /> <br />DeBenedet testified that Dale Street will be widened at some <br />future date as was discussed in the hearings concerning the <br />potential development of the Concordia School site. DeBenedet <br />stated that the City needs to be consistent in applying its <br />requirements. <br /> <br />DeBenedet moved, Goedeke seconded to recommend approval of <br />rezoning the site from R-l to R-3A. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Maschka, Goedeke, DeBenedet, Wietecki, <br />Stokes, Johnson <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />DeBenedet moved, Johnson seconded to recommend approval of the <br />variances with the following conditions: <br /> <br />1. Final approval of utilities and drainage by the Engineering <br />Department. <br /> <br />2. Final approval of landscaping plan by staff. <br /> <br />3. Final approval of site plan by the Fire Marshal. <br /> <br />4. Dedication of 10 feet of right-of-way for the property in <br />question and the contiguous property to the north where <br />dedication was not obtained in 1979. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.