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 11 <br /> <br />the specific plan or proposal meets the ordinance requirements. <br />Shardlow stated that the specific application meets the ordinance <br />requirements and that he was against continuance of this item. <br /> <br />Wietecki questioned whether landscape plans are required for a <br />special use permit amendment. Shardlow replied that the <br />landscape plan is the same as the previous proposal and not <br />relevant to the application before the Commission. <br /> <br />wietecki stated that he would like to see the landscape plan. <br /> <br />Goedeke questioned if <br />landscape requirements. <br /> <br />the applicant has met the previous <br />Shardlow replied that they had. <br /> <br />Johnson pointed out to the Commissioner that a yes vote on the <br />motion puts more activity back behind the building which <br />increases the effect on the adjacent neighborhood. <br /> <br />Roll Call <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Berry <br /> <br />Nayes: <br /> <br />Wietecki, Roberts, Goedeke, Stokes, <br />Johnson <br /> <br />MOTION <br /> <br />Goedeke moved and Wietecki seconded to continue the hearing on <br />this matter for 30 days to allow submittal of landscape plan, <br />staff historical research, and potential screening alternatives. <br /> <br />Roberts stated that the City council has more authority to work <br />with the applicant and neighborhood to reach a solution. Roberts <br />stated that the Planning Commission should move on the issue and <br />be clear to the Council on what they need to do. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that this may place too much burden on the Council <br />and that it is the role of the Commission to try to address all <br />the issues. Johnson added that several Commissioners were not <br />around when the center was originally approved and they have the <br />right to see all the plans. <br /> <br />Roberts stated that the Commission may be trying to address <br />issues which are not before them. Roberts stated that the <br />commission should make strong comments in the minutes so that <br />the Council can take actions to address screening and noise <br />issues. <br /> <br />Shardlow asked if the Planning Commission <br />the complete package of all drawings <br />submitted. wietecki stated that just the <br />requested. <br /> <br />was requesting to see <br />which were originally <br />landscape plan is being <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.