Correspondence 1985-1989 Dahlgren

Home

• n LJ Planning Office • October 22, 1986Hours •' Page 5 9. West, 338-0012 Pete West is from the Maxfield Research Group, and was in to review recent development trends in the City of Roseville relevant to market analysis being conducted by their company in the City of Roseville. These studies relate to the use of land at the southeast corner of Highway 36 and Hamline Avenue, now occupied by the Wilbert-Chandler Vault Company (2.45 acres), and the homes to the south (counting a total of 7 . 8 acres ) . I expressed our concern regarding the marketability of office development proposed and committed within the community as relates to the theoretical market discussed in recent studies done for the City, The staff reviewed with Mr. West, develapments planned, approved, or under consideration in thepCityseof Roseville. 10. Bressler 531-751-3478 John Bressler represents a cellular telephone system known as �1ew Vecture, a subsidiary of U.S. West. They are looking for a site for a two hundred foot high transmission tower in the vicinity of Shoreview and/or Roseville. I noted our regulations regarding "antenna" height, wherein Council approval is required in cases where the Building Inspector considers the impact may be deleterious. I reviewed recent history of antenna height, and suggested that a more appropriate site may be found in a contiguous community. 11. Franke, 636-6400 Bi11 Franke and Tim Nelson of JLN Development were in with Bob Vaney and Dick Heise, newl a their development proposal at the southeast cornereofsHifhr way 36 and Hamline. g I reviewed my concerns regarding this the conversion of the land from an industriallusenoting that Chandler Concrete Vault Manufacturing Company) to anWloffice use is an appropriate conversion in the that the height and intensity of the landlusenwillStbebua significant problem to the contiguous single family area. In this case, it was noted that a substantial tax increment subsidy is proposed on their part and, that without that support the project is economically unsound. I suggested they seek a different site in the City, in that the proposal will be competing with a limited market poten- • tial for high quality office structures which are for and approved in other parts of the Cit planned their extreme interest in this site, and theirTdesire�tto proceed with the normal Planning Commission and Council review.