My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Correspondence 1985-1989 Dahlgren
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
1983-1993 Correspondance and Office Hours Records
>
Correspondence 1985-1989 Dahlgren
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2016 8:56:49 AM
Creation date
2/9/2016 12:57:20 PM
Metadata
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.
/
1203
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
Planning Office Hours <br />December 23, 1986 <br />Page 4 <br />:� We suggested that if the timing works out, they might apply <br />for the lot split and the shoreline approval of the new lot <br />�` development at the same time. We reviewed procedures and <br />requirements for the shoreline ordinance and the lot split. <br />They are going to try to get the material ready quickly <br />enough for the lot split so they can make the February <br />meeting of the Planning Commission. If that is accomplished, <br />they will �ubmit the shoreline ordinance development proposal <br />with the specific house plans the following month (as tenta- <br />tively proposed). <br />5. Lumberg, 636-4600 <br />Brad Lumberg, an engineer with Bonestroo, Rosene, and Ander- <br />lik Associates was in with Robert Russek, their staff archi- <br />tect, to discuss their preparation of preliminary studies <br />relating to the development of the Fairview School site for <br />the Bradford School System (Minneapolis Business College). <br />This meeting took place at their special request on December <br />24 inasmuch as they were requested by Mr. Seigle to proceed <br />immediately with the feasibility studies. We reviewed the <br />same material that we had discussed with Mr. 5eigle the <br />previous day, emphasizing the need for a cooperative effort <br />on the part of the School District, the City, and the Brad- <br />ford people and their consultants. We emphasized, too, the <br />need for an early meeting with the neighbors to keep them <br />w�ll informed as to what is being proposed (even before plans <br />are prepared). <br />Mr. Lumberg talked about the development of single family <br />lots on the southerly part of the site. W.: noted that this <br />would obliterate the principal recreational facilities and <br />that the basic approach the City had proposed and agreed with <br />the Bradford folks was to retain the athletic facilities and <br />dedicate them to the City. We will call Mr. Seigle and <br />reaffirm that point so that there will be no misunderstanding <br />regarding that objective. <br />Mr. Honchell reviewed the traffic considerations suggesting <br />that a third driveway might be estabished near the center <br />between the two existing drives, and confirmed the desir- <br />ability of berms northerly of the parking areas. He noted <br />that the City will be building a pathway on the existing <br />right-of-way which has been alre�dy dedicated at forty-three <br />feet from the southern line of County Road B. We reemphasized <br />the need to not increase traffic through the residential <br />areas as relates to the development of the school site. <br />Mr. Lumberg noted that their firm had prepared a d�velopment <br />plan for the Minneapolis Business College location north o� <br />the Falcon Heights City Hall last year. This program, which <br />included a tax increment element, was approved by the City <br />Council but ultimately was not effectuated by Bradford <br />`- • Schools. Mr. Lumberg noted that the citizens of Falcon <br />Heights did not object to the proposal which included the <br />dormitory facilities and classroom space at a scale similar <br />to that proposed in Roseville. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.