pf_02803 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE * * * * * * * * * * * * * Pursuant to due call and notice thereof) a meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, COlUlty of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the 22nd day of January, 1996 at 5:30 P.M. The following members were present: Mastel, Maschka, Goedeke, Wiski, Wall and the following were absent: None. Member Maschka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 9274 TOWER PLACE AREA AMENDMENT TO THE 1994 ROSEVILLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISING THE TEXT AND PROVIDING ADDITIONAL LAND USE MAP DESIGNA nONS FOR THE EXISTING PLAN ADOPTED WHEREAS, pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976 the City of Roseville is required to prepare a city comprehensive plan, and WHEREAS, the City of Roseville, in 1994, adopted a plan entitled "City of Roseville Comprehensive Guide Plan", which was sent to the Metro Council for review, and WHEREAS, the City Council established a comprehensive plan review and has assisted by further authorizing a citizen committee, the Tower Place Study Committee and the Planning Commission to prepare an amendment for the Tower Place area defined as the area south of County Road "C"; west of Fairview Avenue, north of County Road "B-2" and east of Cleveland Avenue, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held public study meetings and a public hearing (January 10, 1996) for all property owners and property owners within 350 feet, on the issues within these amendments) and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has adopted the recommendations and revisions to the Comprehensive Guide Plan, after a public hearing held on January 10, 1996, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Cowlcil (at a hearing on January 22, 1996) have invited comment and provided legal notice to all property owners within 350 feet of the Tower Place land area, the five revisions approved included: 1) Service and convenience uses (such as Rax and Amoco) should not be removed ITom the mix of uses along the B-2 and Fairview comer since they are the only such uses available in the area -- they may be relocated but should be retained in the mix of permitted uses. 2) Prior Avenue cannot physically be extended through from Oakcrest to County Road C because of the new building activity in this area has precluded the ability to acquire right-of- way. Instead of new public streets, the plan recommends managing traffic, expanding the