Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />NOVEMBER 9, 1993 <br />The City Administrator reported that follow -up has been <br />a problem. Staff is currently working on a checklist <br />where approval conditions will be listed and must be <br />checked off before the file is closed. <br />Carson asked if final inspections are required, <br />pointing out that his home was never final inspected. <br />Carson reported that he was informed that a final <br />inspection is only done when the contractor requests <br />one. <br />The Administrator reported that this could be tied to a <br />Certificate of Occupancy, requiring a final inspection <br />before that Certificate is issued. <br />SHORELAND The City Planner reported that the DNR is requiring <br />ORDINANCE updates of shoreland ordinances, and the Planner <br />submitted a draft update of the City's ordinance. The <br />Planner indicated that this draft is based on a model <br />ordinance submitted by the DNR as well as the City's <br />existing ordinance. The Planner reported that there <br />are not a lot of significant changes from. the City's <br />existing ordinance since nearly all the City's existing <br />shoreland is developed. The only shoreland parcel <br />which is undeveloped is the Mitchell property, and his <br />office has been reviewing development proposals for <br />that parcel against the proposed ordinance. <br />The Planner suggested that the Commission review this <br />draft ordinance in detail and be prepared to discuss it <br />at the December meeting. The Planner also indicated <br />that the most significant changes occur in the PUD <br />section of the ordinance. <br />SIGN The City Planner reported that when the Gas & Go sign <br />ORDINANCE variance request was submitted, the applicant had <br />indicated that his property was at a competitive <br />disadvantage with Roseville properties due to the <br />differences in sign ordinance requirements between the <br />two cities. The Council then asked for a comparison of <br />the City's sign ordinance with that of adjacent <br />communities. <br />The Planner submitted a report comparing 5 or 6 <br />provisions of the City's sign ordinance with those of <br />adjacent communities. The Planner felt that the Little <br />Canada sign ordinance requirements are typical of those <br />in other communities. The Planner commented that it is <br />not unusual for developers to ask for more signage <br />claiming that the additional signage will make them <br />more competitive. In reality, however, signage has <br />Page 7 <br />