My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_910213
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1991
>
pm_910213
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:34 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/13/1991
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.
/
16
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 February 13, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 10 <br /> <br />present that information to the Council. <br /> <br />MOTION <br /> <br />Berry moved and Wietecki seconded to recommend approval of the <br />special use permit with the suggestion that staff research and <br />report the history of approvals and changes which have been made <br />to the Council. <br /> <br />Johnson suggested that elevation changes also be included in the <br />staff research. Berry commented that the motion would cover <br />elevation changes. <br /> <br />wietecki suggested that the motion be amended to include that the <br />City pursue options for the joint construction of the screen wall <br />along the north property line. Berry accepted the amendment. <br /> <br />Ross questioned what joint construction meant. Berry responded <br />that it was open to negotiation. Ross stated that if it was a <br />question of spending dollars on a wall adjacent to the loading <br />dock or on the fence along the property line, that they would <br />agree. <br /> <br />Shardlow stated that it should be clear that the condition does <br />not require the opaque fence along the property line. <br /> <br />Goedeke stated that he did not want a partial fence because that <br />would be an advantage for some neighbors and not others. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that it should be a total solution for all the <br />neighbors. <br /> <br />stokes questioned what the City's purpose was. Was it to protect <br />commercial needs or residential needs or a combination of both. <br />stokes stated that he did not perceive anything new to protect <br />the neighborhood and suggested that a continuance may be in order <br />until a solution to protect the neighbors is agreed upon because <br />this is the only card the City has to play. <br /> <br />wietecki stated that there is not enough information to totally <br />address the issue before the Commission and he agrees with <br />commissioner stokes that a continuance would be in order. <br /> <br />Shardlow testified that all detailed information necessary to <br />address the issue before the Commission has been presented. <br />Shardlow stated that the questions that are arising relate to <br />historical issues which are not a part of the proposal before the <br />Commission. Shardlow added that a solution to these issues is <br />more appropriately solved at the City Council level and not the <br />Planning Commission level. Shardlow stated that role of the <br />Commission is to make a recommendation based on whether or not <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.