My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_891101
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1989
>
pm_891101
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:08 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:38:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/1/1989
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.
/
17
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 3 <br /> <br />Wednesday, November 1, 1989 <br /> <br />concerned about potential expense to the City if the right-of-way <br />is needed. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />DeBenedet testified that what is constructed doesn't seem to <br />agree with the application, specifically the lights. DeBenedet <br />suggested that the Commission ask the applicant to come back with <br />alternatives. DeBenedet stated that he had no problem with the <br />sign design but the intensity of light was a little bright. <br />DeBenedet said that the applicant could find a better location. <br />DeBenedet moved and Berry seconded to continue this matter for <br />one month to allow the applicant to work with staff on <br />alternatives. <br /> <br />Berry stated that she was pleased with the facility and the only <br />negative comment she heard was the concern about parking. <br /> <br />stokes stated that the city shouldn't allow the sign in the <br />right-of-way, that it sets a bad precedent. <br /> <br />Engh questioned whether the light or the sign was the problem. <br />Johnson replied that there were a number of concerns and that <br />this application was not ready to be heard. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />DeBenedet, Goedeke, Maschka, <br />Stokes, Wietecki, Johnson <br /> <br />Berry <br /> <br />Nayes: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Planninq File 2029 <br /> <br />Lawrence Ulrich request for a vacation of a drainage easement at <br />1221 Belair Circle. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Dahlgren summarized location and easement history. <br /> <br />Keel gave background on why the easement was necessary and the <br />change that occurred in the past. <br /> <br />Johnson highlighted the letter from adjacent property owner. <br /> <br />Robert Christianson and attorney for the applicant summarized the <br />history of the site and stated that it is necessary for the city <br />to vacate easement, not just to release it, to clear up a <br />potential title problem. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.