My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02978
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2900
>
pf_02978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:27:19 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 1:56:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2978
Planning Files - Type
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Address
2660 CIVIC CENTER DR
Applicant
EVEREST
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.
/
374
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 />6) Wilbert Vault site has not been redesignated <br />7) the Library is a heavy commercial traffic use. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson distributed a list of 50 commercial properties adjacent to residential <br />uses. (Dated 1/12/98) <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson stated the library expansion derailed development of these parcels. <br />The City encouraged library expansion ot the north instead of intruding to the <br />east. The library is three stories in height and of a commercial nature. Some of <br />the neighbors sold property to the County, pushing the library to the east. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson stated: 1) the staff report concludes there are impacts; but no facts <br />support that, 2) no market study was needed because the developer "knows the <br />market", 3) the staff reference to State Farm is not germain to the Everest site. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson stated the Comprehensive Plan policy conditions do not suggest <br />preservation of the neighborhood or four houses. The four houses do not relate <br />to other homes in the area, nor do they have a common design element. This <br />Everest proposal is an opportunity to add orderly transition and service. <br /> <br />Mr. Nelson noted (in staff report comparison) that an office would benefit from <br />the same adjoining uses as the planned residential uses, <br /> <br />He also compared the 1985 traffic study with current situation, noting traffic <br />declined since 1985. There is no Hamline "pass-through" traffic according to <br />Nelson. <br /> <br />The financial comparison does not illustrate the total benefit to the site. The <br />Everest proposal could be a PUD for Limited Business use and would be <br />appropriate according to Nelson. <br /> <br />Nelson disagrees with the finding that the proposal is not in harmony with <br />comprehensive plan. Nelson said the project will have no domino effect. <br /> <br />No information is available to indicate impacts on neighborhood. <br /> <br />Chairperson Wietecki asked why Everest did not participate in the <br />comprehensive plan process except for the Episcopal Housing Proposal (No <br />response), <br /> <br />Member Mulder asked for clarification regarding the Everest handout on <br />commercial property adjacent to residential uses, Should all these areas be <br />treated similarly to the Everest request? <br /> <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.