My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_851204
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1985
>
pm_851204
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:38 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
12/4/1985
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.
/
11
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 />Planning Commission Minutes <br />December 4, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />Wiski asked what parking ratios were used to arrive at the total <br />number of spaces. Bassett replied 5 per 1,000 on the large office <br />building and on the small office building, and 4 per 1,000 on the <br />smaller units. <br /> <br />Wiski asked whether any EAWs were required. Fisher, Wier's land <br />use attorney, expected they would be submitted within the next <br />two weeks. <br /> <br />Wi ski asked about the timetable with respect to groundbreaking and <br />the actual start of the project. Wier stated he hoped everything <br />would be completed by April 1. <br /> <br />Matson asked about negotiations with residents that are still <br />holding out. Mr. Leary, from Coldwell Banker, replied that the <br />offers have been submitted. New offers are currently on the <br />table, and negotiations are still continuing. Mr. Leary proceeded <br />to point out the sites that are still under consideration. <br /> <br />Drown discussed the engineering aspects, which are quite complex, <br />and a number of those details still need to be completed, but he <br />is confident that they can be worked out. <br /> <br />Wiski asked whether the system capacity is actually there to <br />accommodate a project such as this. Drown replied yes, the <br />capacity does exist. <br /> <br />Matson asked why the spine street was public. Wier replied that <br />the traffic management control is more appropriate. Dahlgren <br />also pointed out that investors prefer to have their property <br />adjacent to a public street. <br /> <br />Wi ski asked whether restrictive covenants were part of the <br />development agreement. Wier replied that they were not; they are <br />separately recorded. <br /> <br />Boehlke, 3070 Cleveland, asked what exactly are the traffic <br />patterns. Bassett proceeded to point out where the exists were <br />with respect to the site plan. <br /> <br />Steinbring, at 3066 Cleveland, stated he would prefer an access <br />further north on D. Benshoot stated this was analyzed, and was <br />determined not to be feasible. In addition, Ramsey County agreed <br />with his particular analysis. <br /> <br />Carlsen, 2975 Cleveland, asked whether this parcel will stay rezoned <br />if Wier doesn't develop. Wier pointed out that the rezoning only <br />takes effect once titles are changed. <br /> <br />Boehlke asked about a sidewalk on the east side of Cleveland. <br />Drown stated the City has a master plan for construction on major <br />county roads; however on the east, the neighbors may wish to <br />petition for a sidewalk. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.