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 />Goedeke questioned whether Struble owned both of the existing <br />lots. Struble responded that he owned one of the lots and that <br />Mr. Williams was also a party to the lot division. <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />DeBenedet questioned if there were any assessments which would be <br />required. Keel responded that there would be no additional <br />assessments necessary. <br /> <br />DeBenedet questioned what the status of the erosion control <br />ordinance, which staff had mentioned in the past and if some sort <br />of erosion control would be required for the development of the <br />lot in question. Keel responded that erosion control would be <br />reviewed and handled as part of a building permit process. Keel <br />indicated that the ordinance was still under study and he hoped <br />it would be approved sometime in the summer. <br /> <br />Stokes questioned if it would be necessary to have additional <br />dedication for a sidewalk on the property. Keel replied that the <br />street has not been designated for a sidewalk as part of the <br />official pathway system. Keel added that there is sufficient <br />right-of-way present and no additional dedication would be <br />required. <br /> <br />Goedeke questioned how you could get a cul-de-sac to the outlot <br />because of the parkland in the area. Shardlow replied that the <br />outlot can't be built upon until it has access from a street and <br />the street design would have to be worked out in the future. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />MOTION <br /> <br />Berry moved and DeBenedet seconded to recommend approval of Roy <br />W. Struble/Don A. William's request for preliminary and final <br />plat at 475 and 485 McCarrons Boulevard North. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Roberts, Stokes, Goedeke, Berry, <br />DeBenedet, wietecki, Johnson <br /> <br />Nayes: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Planninq File 2197 <br /> <br />George Brandt, Inc. request for a variance to the sign ordinance <br />at 2975 Long Lake Road. <br /> <br />The applicant or a representative was not present. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.