Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />� April 24, 1984 <br />-3- <br />94,000 sc{. ft. along the north side of tlle property. The remainder could be <br />used for two more restaurants, or one restaurant and a small shopping <br />facility. All the plans appeared workaUle; the result wi].1 be based primarily <br />on the marlcet for additional restaurants in tlte area. It appears the City's <br />policy of concentrating the restaurants in the one area has worked well; and <br />now tllat there is no space left, additional restaurants are getting as close <br />as they can to this concentration area. The results of the liquor license <br />expansion efforts will be important, and will effect several of the recent <br />restaurant proposals discussed recently in Roseville. The lack of adequate <br />licenses could adversely affect our tax increment districts, particularly at <br />this time in the area north of Rosedale. <br />8) Dunwell - 483-G701. Tom Dunwell was back witl� more specific plans and elevations <br />of his proposed structure west of Rice Street. His 50' x 130' buildings are now <br />more specifically designed and will be all Urick, with screening provided for <br />tlte airconditioning units on tlie roof. It appears tlle top of tlie roof will not <br />be visible from the contiguous residentia.l areas or from Rice Street immediately <br />opposite, but tlle roof will be at eye level from tlle higliest point, coming down <br />the liill for sot�thUound traffic. For this reason, we feel the roof's screening <br />of equipment ivill be app ropriate. Tl�is land is zoned limited Uusiness, and will <br />not require Planning Commission and Council action. <br />� 9) Goff - 484-25GG. Pat Goff was back to review preliminary plans for tlie development <br />of the 3.21 acre trac zoned R-2, just west of t}le mobile ltome park, south of <br />Burlington Nortliern tracks. I-!is plans were very sketclty and did not conform to <br />reasonable setback reauirements. 1Ve suggested an accurate topograr}iy and boundary <br />survey would Ue essential for tlie careful planning of this project, dnd that the <br />number of units that may be allo►aed would Ue c�uite minimal Uecause of the re- <br />strictions due to the ponds, t}le,1easouthwest c}or�lerSofstl e�site,t}�e 120' riglit-of-way <br />required for tlie turnaround at t e <br />10) Group �V - 481-0G77e Mark t�lathewsl�eaa uarterseofetlte}1NortlimSuUurba�ltArea.co`�cinued <br />development of t}ie Group tiV Cable q <br />reviewed tlic rooitop screeiling for the airconciitioning and lieating system. <br />�Ve are going to look at tlie site to determine Wj11C�1 of the uilits sliould be screeneci. <br />Some of them are not visible. IVe also cliscussed t}le potential for �dcling parking. <br />It appears they have realized that additional parking should be provided now. <br />We suggested adding parking accessiUle from the existing drives, r.ather than <br />entcring a new area to the north a�d northeast of the existing Uuildin�. l�ic is <br />goin� to look at this as a potential solution and bring back a proposed plan that <br />would show how th at can be done. 1'hey are talking about approximately 20 spaces <br />for employee parking at this area1okin�1ewerecneed�ed tl�atlit wouldeUelprovidedSbyd <br />on tlle basis that if additional �� g <br />G� oup W . <br />� <br />