My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_910410
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1991
>
pm_910410
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:41 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
4/10/1991
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.
/
19
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 /> <br />Paget <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />April 10, 1991 <br /> <br />Thursday meeting but would have to be careful not to violate the <br />open meeting law. Shardlow stated that the Commission would only <br />have to post the notice in City Hall to meet the requirements of <br />the open meeting law. <br /> <br />DeBenedet stated that perhaps Goedeke should act as the Planning <br />commission representative at the neighborhood meeting. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked that staff provide copies of previous minutes and <br />Shardlow's study to new Commission members. <br /> <br />Planning File 2225 <br /> <br />Northern States Power Company request for an interim use permit <br />at 28~4 Cleveland Avenue. <br /> <br />commission member Wietecki stated that he had a conflict of <br />interest on this i tern because of his emploYment by Northern <br />states Power Company and asked for permission to not partake in <br />the discussion and vote on this item. <br /> <br />wietecki was excused. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Shardlow gave the background of interim use permits and <br />highlighted the proposal and recommended conditions of approval <br />concerning revised landscaping, additional pavement, curb and <br />gutter, height limits on the piles, and a two year time limit on <br />the interim use permit. <br /> <br />Roberts questioned the proposed screening and pointed out that <br />landscaping takes time to grow in order to be workable as a <br />screen. Shardlow responded that species of plantings need to be <br />defined and that there were species that could be used to provide <br />a better and quicker screening. <br /> <br />Goedeke questioned if the fence was existing and pointed out that <br />because of the hill on the property to the east, that screening <br />was not necessary to the east. <br /> <br />Thomas questioned the distance to residential property and parks. <br />Shardlow pointed out the location of surrounding residential and <br />park properties. <br /> <br />Thomas asked if there would be a potential pollution problem <br />because of the run-off of the lot. Keel responded that there had <br />been no drainage plans submitted but that run-off would be only a <br />minor concern because any run-off would go to the pond before it <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.