My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_910508
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1991
>
pm_910508
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:43 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
5/8/1991
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.
/
10
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 />May 8, 1991 <br /> <br />paget <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />stokes asked if the current zoning now in place is according to the <br />comprehensive plan. Shardlow replied that there are some sites <br />that the City may want to considering changing back to be <br />consistent with the comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />Pete Jones, President of Hyman Freightways, expressed concern about <br />the alignment of the new roads going through their buildings. <br />There is little comfort for property owners when they are feeling <br />forced out of business by these new plans. Jones commented that he <br />employs 350 people at his facility and intends to stay in business. <br /> <br />DeBenedet explained that this is not a plan for immediate action <br />but only a guide for the future. <br /> <br />Thomas asked what the procedure was for owners who want to invest <br />money in their properties at this time and what happens if the City <br />wants to put a road through their property after their investment. <br />Shardlow answered that they could improve or even expand their <br />properties. If the City puts a road through, the owner would be <br />paid fair market value for the property through condemnation <br />proceedings. <br /> <br />Ordinance Amendments concerninq shoreline permits and shoreline <br />variances. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Shardlow discussed the shoreline ordinance procedures and proposed <br />changes. Shardlow pointed out that there is no need to go through <br />a separate process, that compliance with the shoreline ordinance <br />provisions could be handled through a normal permit review process. <br />Shardlow also outlined proposed changes in the shoreline variance <br />process to require Planning Commission and City Council review. <br /> <br />MOTION <br /> <br />Goedeke moved and Roberts seconded to recommend approval of <br />ordinance amendments concerning shoreline permits and shoreline <br />variances. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Thomas, Stokes, Goedeke, Roberts, <br />Wietecki, Harms, DeBenedet <br /> <br />Nayes: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Ordinance Amendments concerninq driveway setback requirements and <br />blanket minor variances. <br /> <br />presentation <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.