My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_900606
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1990
>
pm_900606
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:23 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
6/6/1990
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.
/
21
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#2o <br /> <br />Wednesday, June 6, 1990 <br /> <br />DeBenedet questioned if there was any other way to allow the <br />existing marina to continue to operate without opening the door <br />to others. Shardlow suggested that maybe it could be permitted <br />as a PUD. <br /> <br />Bob Slater stated that they purchased the current marina as a <br />three lot package, however, one lot is not covered under the <br />grandfather provisions. <br /> <br />Wietecki pointed out that this would affect other lakes, not <br />just Lake Owasso. <br /> <br />Goedeke stated that a rezoning might trigger other properties but <br />that he was more comfortable with this approach. <br /> <br />Slater pointed out that it is not economically feasible to turn <br />single family property into marinas. <br /> <br />Johnson questioned Shardlow if he was comfortable that there is <br />enough protection in this ordinance as proposed. <br /> <br />Shardlow stated that the approach does provide opportunity for <br />others and that he is not totally comfortable with the approach <br />without defining what performance criteria should be. <br /> <br />Johnson suggested that there be a 30 day continuance to further <br />study the matter. <br /> <br />Slater testified that they want to cooperate but pointed out that <br />interruption because of enforcement of existing ordinances could <br />close down the operation. <br /> <br />Jopke informed the <br />complaint concerning <br />grandfather clause. <br /> <br />Commission that <br />the use of the <br /> <br />the City <br />lot not <br /> <br />has received a <br />covered by the <br /> <br />Slater indicated that he has talked to the neighbors. <br /> <br />Stokes questioned what license requirements there were to operate <br />a marina. Slater replied that they have two State licenses. <br /> <br />MOTION <br /> <br />Stokes moved and Roberts seconded to continue this matter to the <br />regular July Planning Commission meeting. <br /> <br />Berry pointed out that the applicant assumed a three lot package <br />and did not purchase the lot in question afterwards. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.