My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_931110
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1993
>
pm_931110
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:34:08 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/10/1993
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.
/
17
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 />November 10, 1993 <br /> <br />Page# 16 <br /> <br />would be eliminated if this project proceeded. He illustrated buildings <br />currently under construction by the applicant CSM at a location on <br />Broadway Boulevard in New Brighton. He noted that truck traffic will be <br />involved on this site but only serving each individual tenant. The <br />construction schedule would be to lease the existing building in 1994, <br />construct and lease the middle building in 1994, and construct the east <br />building in 1995. <br /> <br />Chairperson Wietecki reminded the applicant that Roseville expects four <br />side architectural treatment, good landscaping, drainage, and cleaning up <br />hazardous soil sites. Member Thomas asked what would occur with the <br />building that will remain on the site. Kornberg explained that the County <br />Road C side of the building will be turned into an office complex with a <br />glass front. Member Roberts asked for clarification regarding the planned <br />unit development. City Planner Falk described this as a campus of uses <br />in which lot divisions will allow for shared parking and create joint <br />landscaping with minimal setback requirements. It will make for a better, <br />more complete plan. <br /> <br />Member Wall asked the developer to place landscaping in the parking <br />areas and add coniferous materials. <br /> <br />No further action was taken. <br /> <br />6(g) Planning File 2629 <br /> <br />An ordinance amendment to Chapter 201, Section 201.010 of the City <br />Code, adding new language regarding the growth of weeds, grasses, or <br />other rank vegetation. <br /> <br />Community Development Director, Dennis Welsch, provided a <br />background report in which he described the difficulties the Code <br />Administrators/Inspectors have had dealing with weeds and weed heights. <br />In order to effectively administer the weed ordinance, a number of <br />proposals have been made. They include requiring all property owners <br />to maintain their lots along property lines~ requiring each property owner <br />to have the designated maintenance area for weeds and grasses at a height <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.