My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_980114
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1998
>
pm_980114
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:35:06 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:56:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
1/14/1998
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.
/
20
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 />Doug Kennedy, Franchise Assoc., the operator of Arbys, described the access <br />along back property lines, noting it is most heavily used at noon time. A public <br />access would be difficult because of other drive-through lanes in the area. <br />? <br />Doug Kennedy stated that the Arbys sign is corporate heritage/tradition. When <br />? <br />Arbys rebuilds, they keep the original signs. The new building will be set back <br />and less visible. The existing sign is more visible. <br />Kennedy stated employees and contractors parking will be handled off-site. The <br />31 spaces will be adequate in the off-season. <br />Member Cunningham asked for the reason and the placement of the new store. <br />? <br />(Arbys hopes to keep its employees and customers during construction). <br />Member Harms asked, if the sign was such a contention and issue, would the <br />project go ahead? (Doug Kennedy: no). Chair Wietecki noted that this <br />Conditional Use Permit would require a new sign, meeting the current code. <br />Council member Mastel asked for an example of a similar designed building and <br />location (Hwy 35E and Hwy 96). <br />There were no comments from the public and therefore Chair Wietecki closed <br />the hearing. <br />Member Mulder asked what are the existing building setbacks along the street. <br />He also asked if the electrical and telephone poles/lines could be buried or <br />moved. <br />Motion: <br /> Member Wietecki moved, Member Harms seconded, to recommend <br />approval, based on staff findings and recommendations (as follows), of the <br />Conditional Use Permit with the exception of #6 stating that free standing signs <br />must meet the current code requirements. <br />1.The redevelopment of the site as proposed will have a minimal impact on <br />traffic in the area, as the use of the property will not be changing. <br />2.The proposed redevelopment of the property as proposed will not have an <br />impact on parks, streets and other public facilities. <br />3.The redevelopment of the property as proposed will be compatible with <br />contiguous properties. Access and egress will be improved, sight lines <br />along the frontage road will be improved, internal traffic circulation will be <br />improved, the overall appearance will be improved, and landscaping of <br />the site will be improved. An existing six foot board on board fence and <br />over-story trees along the western property line provide an adequate <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.