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 7 <br /> <br />Wednesday, November 1, 1989 <br /> <br />Nays: None <br /> <br />Abstain: stokes <br /> <br />Planninq File 2034 <br /> <br />Morgan Investment Company request for an amendment to a condition <br />on previous granted variance and a variance to have a loading <br />dock within 100 feet of a residential zoning district. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Dahlgren summarized the location and history of the proposal. <br /> <br />Keel stated that there were no specific Engineering concerns on <br />this project. <br /> <br />Larry Berg stated that the applicant is willing to do anything <br />reasonable to meet the concerns of the adjacent property owner. <br />Berg summarized the leasing problems and shortage of loading bays <br />at the existing building. Berg pointed out that there are six <br />more loading bays currently adjacent to the rail line within the <br />100 feet restricted area. Berg testified that the property is <br />not usable for their proposed tenant and they are anxious to <br />complete the improvements before winter time. Berg pointed out <br />that they would like to continue the work and have submitted a <br />letter accepting the risk of having to return the building to its <br />previous state if the City does not approve the variance request. <br />Berg added that they are not the original developer of the <br />property and so they were surprised by these requirements. <br /> <br />Maschka stated he didn't recall there being any landscaping along <br />County Road C2. Berg replied that there are trees on the south <br />side but that some of the landscaping has been lost because the <br />hill has been cut back. Leo Hodroff stated he has owned the <br />building for thirteen years and would be happy to put back the <br />landscaping that has been lost. Maschka asked if the applicant <br />would be willing to provide additional landscaping if required. <br />Hodroff replied that they would put in more or whatever the <br />adjacent property wants. <br /> <br />Berry pointed out that on the drawing, the trees look big but in <br />reality they are very small. Berry added that follow up on these <br />requirements might be a problem and that she was horrified that <br />an excavator would do work in the City without a permit. <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.