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 3 <br /> <br />stated that they were landscaping the perimeter of the parking <br />lot in lieu of interior landscaping. <br /> <br />Stokes stated that it is difficult granting this variance without <br />asking for the lO foot right-of-way since the next applicant will <br />be required to grant a 10 foot right-of-way. Shardlow stated <br />that the existing parking lot doesn't comply with the ordinance <br />so either a variance must be granted or the parking lot has to be <br />reduced 10 feet. He stated that the city owns the land so it is <br />secure for future roadway use by the county. <br /> <br />Stokes stated that they can't treat the government any different <br />than other applicants. Shardlow stated that the city is saying <br />the land will be available when the County needs it. If the city <br />doesn't secure the land from private parties, the County would <br />have to buy it. He added that the project needs a variance <br />otherwise it is in violation of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Johnson pointed out that the Commission isn't allowing the parks <br />department to do what it pleases. Shardlow added that the city <br />is incrementally acqulrlng the opportunity to make the land <br />available for improvements in 10-15 years. <br /> <br />Stokes questioned what exactly the hardship is. Bierscheid <br />answered that without the variance the golf course would lose a <br />whole row of parking spaces, perhaps causing patrons to park in <br />the neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Berry testified that the city asks for right-of-way dedication to <br />make the land available to Ramsey county when they make <br />improvements. The city asks for right-of-way dedication in <br />exchange for the changes applicants are seeking. <br /> <br />wietecki said that an interim use permit could address right- <br />of-way issues. <br /> <br />Roberts questioned if the right-of-way is already secured, why is <br />a dedication needed. Shardlow replied that it's because Hamline <br />is a County Road. <br /> <br />MOTION <br /> <br />Goedeke moved and Berry seconded that the variance be granted <br />with the following condition: That the dedication of the right- <br />of-way be granted once Hamline Avenue improvements are imminent. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Berry, Goedeke, Johnson, Roberts, <br />wietecki <br /> <br />Abstain: Stokes <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.