My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02889
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2800
>
pf_02889
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:23:37 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 1:27:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2889
Planning Files - Type
Planning-Other
Address
2660 CIVIC CENTER DR
Applicant
JAMES ADDITION
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
1436
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 />_ Preserve the easement (20'-30'?) for future rail transit adjacent to <br />Snelling Ave. <br />_ Provide width/area for storing snow. <br />_ Extend the bike path from Snelling intersection to the shopping center. <br />_ Require a similar emergency road access to the shopping center and <br />consider also marking it for both bike path and walkway use. This <br />could provide a triple benefit and prevent people from parking on it. <br />_ Consider rerouting Oakcrest south around a new contiguous residential <br />area because it is seen as adding value, making best use of property <br />under the high power lines and providing a larger buffer and locations <br />for trees to help screen the shopping center. <br />_ The city should make Oakcrest a city street if state design standards <br />are too restrictive. <br /> <br />3) FOR FAIRVIEW AVENUE AND ADJACENT 14 HOMES <br /> <br />The Task Force knows that the issues on this topic are very complicated, <br />interrelated and sensitive to all involved parties. There is no obvious or <br />easy solution or likely one without a significant cost and long range <br />planning. It is believed this could have been more easily resolved by <br />earlier long range planning which in general citizens do not strongly <br />support. <br /> <br />The Task Force has provided an interim recommendation that will at least <br />Initiate needed further discussion. Additional evaluation is recommended <br />to help decide the best road revisions and the best future for the adjacent <br />residential area that is fair to all parties. <br /> <br />4) FOR OAKCREST AVENUE <br /> <br />Nothing has been recommended for traffic calming such as speed bumps <br />or narrowing the road. It is hoped that the recommended changes at the <br />ends will help reduce excessive speeds. It received state aid for the last <br />improvement and is required to be designed for 30 mph speeds to maintain <br />eligibility which may not be possible. <br /> <br />5) FOR COUNTY ROAD "C". WITH RAILROAD AND CITY PROPERTY <br /> <br />Adjacent homeowners have not expressed any large problems or <br />complaints but have mentioned the noise and visual impacts and a desire <br />to improve them. Conceptually adding a berm and trees could be done and <br />would help. It should be discussed further. It may be difficult to agree to <br />anything on railroad property or purchase a small sliver for this purpose. <br /> <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.