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# 7 <br /> <br />Wednesday, October 4, 1989 <br /> <br />Maschka stated that he would have less trouble with the issue if <br />it were considered a PUD but that a distinction can be made <br />because there is a legal property line present. <br /> <br />Johnson testified that Reinhardt can choose to develop or not <br />develop based on the requirements. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />DeBenedet, Johnson, <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />Maschka, Goedeke, Wietecki, Stokes <br /> <br />wietecki moved, stokes 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 />3. Final approval of site plan by the Fire Marshal. <br />4. Dedication of 10 feet of right-of-way for the property in <br />question. <br /> <br />5. Filing of easements providing common access to the four <br />contiguous effected properties for vehicular purposes. <br /> <br />6. That funds be placed in escrow for a 5 foot sidewalk as <br />required. <br /> <br />7. That the site be developed in accordance with the plans <br />submitted to the Planning commission on October 4, 1989. <br /> <br />DeBenedet questioned if there was a concern of property line or <br />whether or not it was a PUD. Maschka stated that there are two <br />distinct properties in question. <br /> <br />DeBenedet testified that this proposal is part of a complete plan <br />which is being done in phases similar to a PUD. <br /> <br />Goedeke stated that it would not stand up in court because Mr. <br />Reinhardt just obtained the property in question. <br /> <br />DeBenedet stated that the property had been purchased with a life <br />estate. <br /> <br />Dahlgren pointed out to the Commission that the property had been <br />purchased before it was planned to be four units. Dahlgren added <br />that it is in fact a four unit development and all of the units <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.