Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />October 14, 1992 <br /> <br />Paget <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />No citizens appeared. <br /> <br />MOTION <br /> <br />Goedeke moved and Roberts seconded a motion to recommend denial of <br />Rosedale Center request for variance to the zoning ordinance based <br />on the sign being a pylon sign and to recommend variances to allow <br />two 18 sq. ft. directional signs without "Rosedale" based on the <br />fact that four separate 4.5 sq. ft. directional signs could be <br />constructed at each location. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Goedeke, Roberts, Thomas, Harms, <br />DeBenedet <br /> <br />Nayes: <br /> <br />stokes, wietecki <br /> <br />MINORITY REPORT - The proposed signs are appropriate because they <br />reduce clutter, conform to other signs on the property. Rosedale <br />is a large unique parcel which would justify special consideration. <br /> <br />Planninq File 2478 <br /> <br />Fine Associates request for interim use permit and variance to the <br />zoning ordinance at 1525 W. county Road C. <br /> <br />stokes excused himself from discussion because of a conflict. <br /> <br />Bob Kueppers, representing Fine Associates, discussed the reasons <br />for the requests including history of joint parking discussions, <br />parking needs, and the difficulty of the current real estate <br />market. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Shardlow highlighted the proposal. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Issues discussed included linkage between the two parts of the <br />request, intent of interim use permits, the impact of a gravel <br />parking lot, long and short range parking problems and solutions, <br />pond maintenance, parking lot maintenance, and methods of handling <br />runoff and sediment. <br /> <br />MOTION <br /> <br />Roberts moved to recommend the parking interim use permit subject <br />to resolution of City staff concerns on drainage and to deny the <br />interim use permit for the sign because it is not consistent with <br />the intent of the new sign ordinance. There was no second to this <br />motion. <br /> <br />wietecki moved and Roberts seconded a motion to recommend denial of <br />