My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_910313
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1991
>
pm_910313
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:37 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/13/1991
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.
/
14
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 March 13, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 10 <br /> <br />the high expense. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that Commissioner wietecki might possibly have a <br />conflict of interest because of his emploYment with the power <br />company. wietecki denied any conflict and stated that he was <br />merely presenting this information as a point of information for <br />the Commission. <br /> <br />Goedeke stated his concern about truck parking in the area being <br />an eye sore and adversely affecting the office development in the <br />area. <br /> <br />Roll Call <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Berry, DeBenedet, wietecki <br /> <br />Nayes: <br /> <br />Roberts, Stokes, Goedeke, Johnson <br /> <br />MOTION <br /> <br />Roberts moved and Stokes seconded to recommend denial of the <br />interim use permit for a truck repair facility at 2140 County <br />Road C because the proposed use does not comply with a B-4 zoning <br />district requirements. <br /> <br />Roll Call <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Roberts, Stokes, Goedeke, Johnson <br /> <br />Nayes: <br /> <br />Berry, DeBenedet, wietecki <br /> <br />Other Business <br /> <br />Potential ordinance amendments relating to minor variances, <br />shoreline permits and shoreline variances. <br /> <br />Shardlow discussed concerns about existing ordinances and <br />potential ordinance amendments. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that the original shoreline ordinance was <br />necessary to get peoples attention and that the public has <br />probably been educated enough to now explore a revised process. <br /> <br />Shardlow stated that the number of variances granted to driveway <br />sideyard setback requirements has reduced the affective side yard <br />to o. Shardlow pointed out that there are some reasons to <br />maintain a 5 foot setback for aesthetic benefits and snow <br />storage. Shardlow stated that review is necessary to determine <br />what conditions would justify variances. <br /> <br />Berry pointed out that it is expensive to move existing <br />driveways. Berry stated that she was reluctant to change the <br />setback requirements for new driveways but felt it was okay to <br />grandfather in existing non-conforming driveways. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.