My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2011_0912
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
CC_Minutes_2011_0912
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/11/2011 11:42:01 AM
Creation date
10/11/2011 11:41:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/12/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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
Thomas Paschke <br /> From: dan.roe @comcast.net <br /> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 3:40 PM <br /> To: Thomas Paschke <br /> Subject: Re: Regulating Plan <br /> Thomas, <br /> I am okay with "will" versus "may." <br /> How about this wording, to be more concise: <br /> On Flexible Frontage sites located at or near pedestrian corridors or roadway intersections, where <br /> building placement is not to be in the build-to area, the City will require additional public amenities or <br /> enhancements including, but not limited to, seating areas, fountains or other water features, art, or <br /> other items, to be placed in the build-to area, as approved by the Community Development <br /> Department. <br /> Dan Roe <br /> Roseville Mayor <br /> Phone 651-487-9654 <br /> Email dan.roe( ci.roseville.mn.us <br /> From: "Thomas Paschke" <thomas.paschkeci.roseville.mn.us> <br /> To: "Dan Roe" <dan.roefa?_comcast.net> <br /> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 3:10:36 PM <br /> Subject: Regulating Plan <br /> Dan; <br /> I have had a chance to think about your proposed text amendment further and slightly contrary to my <br /> initial email,I have a few comments I would like to share with you: <br /> First the word "may" should be changed to will, must or shall. The Planning Division does not want to be <br /> in the position of randomly determining whether a site provides additional amenities or not. <br /> Next, I understand what you are driving at,but there are some parcels that requiring the amenities you list <br /> does not make good sense. I think limiting to corner parcels or those parcels adjacent to the <br /> comdor/connections has merit and are locations that having additional public amenities such and <br /> benches,waste receptacles, a fountain or other work. But there are some locations, such as the site <br /> directly north of Twin Lakes Corporate Center IV along Cleveland Avenue that don't work. I also think <br /> more thought should be given to whether we want all of the potential"public" amenities. <br /> My thought to date would be ..... On Flexible Frontage sites where building placement is not in the build- <br /> to area, the City will require additional public amenities/enhancements including, but not limited to, <br /> seating areas, fountains or other water features, art, or other items, to be placed in the build-to area and <br /> specific to parcels at or near pedestrian corridors/connections and/or parcels at or near corners, as <br /> approved by the Community Development Department. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.