Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5 <br /> <br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Wednesday, December 5, 1990 <br /> <br />MOTION <br /> <br />DeBenedet moved and Goedeke seconded that the City Council reach <br />a conclusion concerning the potential disposition of the <br />approximately 1.7 acre park parcel to the East of the Zeece <br />parcel. If the Council determines that the park parcel is excess <br />and should be made available for development, then it is <br />recommended that the Zeece plat be revised to allow future access <br />to the parcel to the East and that the revised plat be returned <br />for review by the planning Commission. If the Council determines <br />that park parcel is not excess and should be maintained as parks <br />and open space, then it is recommended that the Zeece plat be <br />approved as presented. <br /> <br />stokes questioned whether the Staff has talked to the applicant <br />and if he has indicated if he would accept the road if the number <br />of lots is maintained. If it is acceptable to Zeece, stokes is <br />agreeable to the motion. Shardlow stated that he had discussed <br />it with the applicant and that his first choice was the plat as <br />presented, but that he believed that he would accept the other <br />option. <br /> <br />Berry stated her concern about people saying that they would want <br />to leave land as is forever because people and their attitudes <br />change. She stated that she supported the motion. <br /> <br />Roberts stated that he concurred with Stokes' previous statement. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />DeBenedet, Berry, Boedeke, Stokes, <br />Roberts, Johnson, <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Planninq File 2177 <br /> <br />Tanurb Development request for a special use permit for an <br />amended site plan with variances to allow the construction of two <br />monument signs at the Rosedale Commons Shopping Center at 2480 <br />Fairview Avenue North. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Shardlow summarized the request, the previous Planning <br />Commission actions, and what has occurred since the previous <br />Planning Commission meeting. Shardlow pointed out that he was in <br />general concurrence with what is being proposed with the ground <br />signs and pylon signs, but that details of the wall signage have <br />not been submitted and should be submitted within a reasonable <br />time frame. <br />