My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_921014
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1992
>
pm_921014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:56 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/14/1992
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.
/
6
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 />October 14, 1992 <br /> <br />Paget <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Issues discussed included the previous resolution passed by the <br />City Council, the need for a survey, and lot sizes in the area. <br /> <br />Mr. Borgeson stated that a survey will be completed when a building <br />permit is applied for and that the issue relating to Council <br />resolution needs to be clarified. <br /> <br />No citizens appeared. <br /> <br />DeBenedet Closed the Public Hearing <br /> <br />MOTION <br /> <br />Harms moved and Goedeke seconded a motion to recommend approval of <br />Feryle and Betty Borgeson request for division of platted lot at <br />590 Transit Avenue with the following conditions: <br /> <br />l. That the applicant provide city staff with a new certificate <br />of survey for the two new lots, prior to the issuance of a <br />building permit or sale of either lot, showing the dedicated <br />right-of-way easement for Sextant Avenue. <br /> <br />2. That no building permit be granted for the new lot until the <br />requirements of Resolution 8701 are clarified, met, or <br />modified to allow construction on this lot. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Stokes, Goedeke, Roberts, Thomas, <br />Harms, Wietecki, DeBenedet <br /> <br />Nayes: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Planninq File 2476 <br /> <br />Rosedale Center request for variance to the zoning ordinance. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Shardlow highlighted the proposal. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Issues discussed included the type of variance necessary, whether <br />the proposed sign was a directional or pylon sign, actual sign <br />locations, size of signs, why all four store names had to be on <br />sign, what the hardship or practical difficulty was, whether or not <br />the word "Rosedale" had to be on the sign, the rationale behind the <br />ordinance requirements, whether or not it is important to have all <br />signs appear the same, the value of combining signs, the uniqueness <br />of Rosedale, and the concern about the precedent of granting a <br />variance immediately after new sign regulations are adopted. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.