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 8 <br /> <br />Neilson asked whether an environmental assessment or review was <br />needed. Wiski replied that was already resolved through previous <br />action on the comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />Matson stated that, in his opinion, the pond could be significantly <br />improved, and a screening may even be required to the north of <br />the property. <br /> <br />Mrs. Malachek, of 1323 Oakcrest, asked about the left hand turn <br />lanes, and how they get on Hamline. Neilson stated that she was <br />opposed to the project as a result of the traffic, the cost of <br />the units, the inexperience of the developers, and the lack of <br />the protection for residents on the southern part of the <br />development. <br /> <br />Resident stated she was opposed to the project based on the lack <br />of availability of low income apartments. <br /> <br />Another resident was concerned about the contamination, and wants <br />pressure placed on PCA to resolve this concern. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br />DeBenedet moved, seconded by Berry, to approve the variances on <br />height and parking per submitted plans with the following <br />conditions: <br /> <br />1. No driveway to the south. <br />2. Staff approves all fire (which includes canopy and two-way <br />road access), utility, and grading plans. <br />3. Landscaping plans be approved by staff and coordinated with <br />neighbors. <br />4. The wall along Hamline be constructed of brick. <br />5. Sidewalk be built on Hamline. <br />6. No exhaust or mechancial systems on the southern side of the <br />building. <br />7. The pond be dedicated to the City. <br /> <br />Discussion <br />Mueller asked whether additional right-of-way was needed on <br />Hamline. Drown stated that he believed the right-of-way was <br />currently sufficient. <br /> <br />Matson stated that no parking on the drive itself should be <br />considered for fire purposes. It was decided that this, in <br />effect, would be addressed through the requirement that the fire <br />plan be approved by the City Fire Marshal. <br /> <br />Dressler stated a concern regarding saturation in terms of senior <br />complexes, but will support the project, as it is an excellent <br />proposal for that particular zone and something not of as high <br />quality could be built in that area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.