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 />9 <br /> <br />should be able to do so. <br />hardship. <br /> <br />He stated that this situation is a <br /> <br />Roberts explained that he felt the citizens rights were taken away <br />if they wanted to enforce the sideyard setbacks. <br /> <br />Ordinance Amendments concerninq outside storaqe requirements in <br />business zoning districts. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Shardlow explained that this is a minor housekeeping item. The <br />ordinance establishing the new design standards had inadvertently <br />deleted a section of code dealing with outside storage in business <br />districts. <br /> <br />MOTION <br /> <br />Roberts moved and Stokes seconded to reinstate section 8.190, <br />relating to outside storage in business districts, to the City <br />code. <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 />Discussion concerninq ordinance amendments to define what is a <br />substantial change between approval plans and actual development. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Shardlow discussed what defines a substantial change versus a minor <br />change on already approved plans. Staff is proposing a change to <br />City code allowing the Development Review Committee to handle minor <br />changes providing such change does not involve encroachment on any <br />required yard area. For any changes not considered minor, the <br />project would have to come back through the normal review process. <br /> <br />stokes asked if this included residential construction. Shardlow <br />stated that it would be a site plan review pursuant to a building <br />permit so it may be appropriate to add building permits to the <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Harms questioned when discrepancies in construction were typically <br />found. Shardlow replied that problems were usually found during <br />the plan review process but on a large project there can be margin <br />for error. <br /> <br />Roberts asked what the process is now for minor changes. <br /> <br />Keel <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.