My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_900502
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1990
>
pm_900502
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:20 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
5/2/1990
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.
/
15
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 />Pagel 4 <br /> <br />Wednesday, May 2, 1990 <br /> <br />Keel stated that the City usually encourages businesses to <br />provide a front sidewalk and merchants should try not to fill <br />them up with merchandise. <br /> <br />Berry stated that people do seem to walk directly in from their <br />vehicles. Berry questioned what the city can require regarding <br />front sidewalks. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that she would be comfortable with requiring <br />certain dimensions and having these dimensions defined in the <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />DeBenedet stated that the Planning Commission should consider <br />tabling this item. DeBenedet stated that the site plan for this <br />site was approved about four years ago. The addition of new <br />parking entrances must be looked at in the future by the Planning <br />Commission. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that the Planning commission can not require this <br />if the site plan was previously approved unless a new one is <br />submitted by the applicant. <br /> <br />DeBenedet stated that this site plan review of parking entrances <br />should be put in as a condition on this special use permit. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that she does not believe that the Planning <br />Commission can require this as a condition to the special Use <br />Permit. <br /> <br />stokes stated that the front yard setback requirement is 30 feet <br />and this applicant well exceeds this required amount. stokes <br />stated that he does not see that this special Use Permit will <br />have any impact on the pedestrian traffic and is not sure if <br />there are valid reasons to table this until the next meeting. <br /> <br />wietecki stated that if the City needs the specific dimensions <br />then the zoning code will be able to enforce this item. wietecki <br />added that he can see no problem with enforcing these <br />requirements. <br /> <br />Schwalbach stated that his main problem is the storage space to <br />the side of the front of the building. Schwalbach added that <br />this is due to his shortage of inside storage space. <br /> <br />Jopke stated that the drawing he has shows that there appears to <br />be enough room for these outside displays. <br /> <br />DeBenedet stated that it is around 79 feet of outside display <br />space. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.