My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03232
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3200
>
pf_03232
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 1:50:39 PM
Creation date
12/14/2004 6:27:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3232
Planning Files - Type
Planning-Other
Project Name
TWIN LAKES
Applicant
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
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.
/
1764
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 />· Eliminate Mount Ridge easement north of County C2. <br /> <br />Traffic: <br />· Too much new traffic will be created and not enough traffic problems <br />will be solved with any option. <br />. Retail will create the worst traffic impacts. <br /> <br />Policy: <br />· Be careful with designs - need architectural designs but it should not <br />look like a military complex. <br />· The majority of the commercial and industrial development is west of <br />Snelling. Why more? What percentage of total CII are in the Twin <br />Lakes area currently? <br />· If the buildings are being used productively then why is there a need <br />to change? <br />· Why more office space, there are already offices vacant along 35W. <br />· Hospitals - is this real? Residents would like a hospital near by so they <br />wouldn't have to travel so far to a hospital <br />. Why hotels? There are enough already. <br /> <br />November 2, 2000 10:00 am <br />Property Owners Comments <br /> <br />General: <br />· Suggestion that the property owners get together and decide <br />collectively what to do with their land rather than the City deciding <br />for them. <br />· Should remain flexible due to the changing market conditions. <br /> <br />Land Use: <br />. Alternative 4, with some retail, makes sense -especially since there <br />are no other retail growth areas in Roseville and there is a natural <br />buffer of the residential neighborhood to the south created by County <br />Road C. <br />. Alternative 3 puts "too many eggs in the office basket" <br />. Alternative 4 could have higher density housing - a nice apartment <br />complex west of Langton Lake with views of the lake <br />. Put plan back to the 1988 land use which included retail. <br /> <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.