My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_900905
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1990
>
pm_900905
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:31 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/5/1990
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 />Wednesday September 5, 1990 <br /> <br />Page 13 <br /> <br />Johnson stated that developers have stated that the city should <br />clean up this site if it insists on having developers clean up <br />their sites. <br /> <br />Roberts questioned what the hardship was. Gatlin stated that <br />this was the only location on the site for a new building and <br />that the building needs to be wide in order to accommodate the <br />large machinery. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that this was not necessary a case of hardship but <br />of practical difficulties. Shardlow stated that this was a <br />correct statement. He added that the city should ideally strive <br />towards consistency with its standards but that practical <br />difficulties prevented this. <br /> <br />wietecki stated that this would have been better if it was <br />considered part of a Planned unit Development. Shardlow stated <br />that is correct. <br /> <br />Johnson commented on the construction restraints. Gatlin stated <br />that they hope to let the contracts in October and occupy the <br />building by Spring 1991. He stated that a delay would add 5% in <br />cost. <br /> <br />Bahnemann, 2656 Lexington Avenue, stated that his notice said the <br />building setback was 11 feet not 22 feet. Jopke replied that <br />this was a typographical error and since the setback was actually <br />farther than the notice indicated, there should be no problem. <br /> <br />Bahnemann questioned how far the fence gate would be from the <br />road. Gatlin stated 28 feet. <br /> <br />Bahnemann questioned what would happen to the back bay doors. <br />Keel stated that they would be sealed off and would be served by <br />a courtyard entrance. <br /> <br />Bahnemannquestioned how police would have access if the gate was <br />locked. Gatlin stated that the gate lock would be card <br />controlled and that the police would have unlocking cards. <br /> <br />Bahnemann questioned the size of the addition. <br />12,000 square feet, about a 30% increase over <br />building. <br /> <br />Gatlin stated <br />the existing <br /> <br />Bahnemann questioned whether this was a deviation from the <br />ordinance on building size. Shardlow stated that there was no <br />need for a variance for municipal buildings. Shardlow added that <br />height limitation is thirty feet in an R1 zone and this building <br />is well below that mark. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.