My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_851002
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1985
>
pm_851002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:38 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/2/1985
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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 />Roseville Planning Commission Minutes <br />October 2, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />Mrs. McLean, 2563 North Hamline, stated that the road was next to <br />her residence, and if it was raised, that would result in extensive <br />water movement towards their property. Thompson replied that <br />when it is graded, the water will be channeled towards their <br />property, and not toward McLean's house. Drown again confirmed <br />that the water can be contained on that site. <br /> <br />Wiski also asked about the status of the landscaping proposals. <br />Thompson stated that there is a lot of discussion going on about <br />fencing and proposed landscaping, and much still needs to be <br />worked out. However, they are more than willing to meet with the <br />neighbors to reach agreement. Nielson stated that she was very <br />concerned about the landscape, and whether it would or wouldn't <br />be appropriate. Goldstein replied they would be more than <br />willing to work with the neighbors on the south to reach <br />agreement on the landscaping. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked how they came up with the figure of .8 for the <br />parking. Palm pointed out that .66 is really more accurate. <br />Goldstein pointed out that they did find .66 to essentially meet the <br />needs of such a project, and therefore by allowing one per each <br />unit, they are confident that the parking needs will easily be <br />addressed. Wiski asked that if additional parking was needed, <br />where would they find it. Thompson replied again that because <br />they are at one as opposed to .66, they are very confident they <br />won't need additional parking. <br /> <br />Nielson asked about the driveway on the southern part of the <br />parcel. Ted Davis said that could be eliminated, but they are <br />using that to meet the parking requirements. <br /> <br />Mrs. McLean asked why only one access. Thompson replied that <br />according to their analysis, that's all that is really needed for <br />the envisioned traffic there. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked if this was going to be all Seniors, and how can <br />it be enforced. Demos pointed out that this is a housing revenue <br />bond, and they are required to follow these respective guidelines. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked what the highest point in the parcel was. Thompson <br />replied the highest area would be forty-five feet. <br /> <br />Mueller asked where the mechanical systems would be placed. <br />Oberlander replied that the condensing units would have to be in <br />the ground. Mueller asked if those could be kept away from the <br />south side, and will the project be phased. Goldstein stated <br />that they will make an effort to keep the units away from the <br />south, and with respect to the staging, they would be building <br />the new set first to allow the people to move in from the old one <br />if they wanted to stay, and then work on the remodeling of the <br />old facility as part of the second phase. They would then <br />proceed to build the rest of the project. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.