My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_860903
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1986
>
pm_860903
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:46 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/3/1986
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.
/
6
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 />September 3, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Johnson asked what exactly are the fifty percent improvements <br />that are supposedly occurring. Lammers stated that it was clean- <br />up. Jim Range, the Comptroller for Cleanco, further discussed <br />what cleanup is occurring on the site. Johnson stated that the <br />area obviously looks worse today than it has in the past, and <br />asked for more detail in terms of what is being done. Range <br />stated that it was his opinion that seventy percent of the <br />problem has already been addressed. Lammers stated that, in his <br />opinion, it is not important with respect to how much has been <br />cleaned up, but more importantly the fact that the developer is <br />agreeing to clean up the total site. Both Johnson and Berry <br />stated that this has gone on for fourteen years, and past <br />performance is extremely relevant to the issue at hand. <br /> <br />Goedeke stated that he was concerned that the trucks were being <br />stored outside, particularly in light of the fact that the <br />Planning Commission was previously informed the trucks would be <br />stored inside of the building. Mr. Range proceeded to discuss <br />Mr. Nelson's type of business at this site, and what the storage <br />requirements actually were. Goedeke reiterated he has certainly <br />seen more than three trailers parked outside at various times. <br />Discussion then ensued with respect to what parts of the property <br />were Trapp's responsibility, and where the Special Use was <br />actually being requested. <br /> <br />Demos proceeded to discuss Steve North's letter of 1976, that <br />pointed out that crushed rock could not remain on the site, and <br />that the whole area would have to be blacktopped. Berry reit- <br />erated the fact that the whole area should be blacktop. Dahlgren <br />stated that it was his opinion that it should be surfaced. All <br />new developments before the Planning Commission and Council today <br />require paved surfaces. <br /> <br />Wiski asked for additional information with respect <br />specifically the Special Use was being requested, <br />existing curb was, and where sodding would take place. <br /> <br />to where <br />where the <br /> <br />Johnson asked where Mr. Trapp was, in view of the fact that he <br />was the applicant and he should probably be present. Wiski <br />stated that often times the Planning Commission allows an owner <br />to be represented by other individuals. Mr. Range stated that he <br />has the authority to represent the project, and Mr. Trapp's <br />schedule is simply too busy to allow him to appear. Demos <br />pointed out that she had seen Mr. Trapp sitting in the audience <br />relating to other projects at previous meetings. Berry pointed <br />out again that the difficulties on this site have simply gone on <br />too long, and they should be corrected immediately. <br /> <br />Mr. Range stated that $100,000 has been put into the building. <br />DeBenedet stated that representatives are allowed to stand in for <br />a particular applicant. He stated he is concerned the staff did <br />not get to review this project before the meeting. Mr. DeBenedet's <br />motion, in June, was that all of these items should have been <br />addressed. Waldron's letter subsequent to the meeting informed <br />the applicant what had to be addressed. The conditions have not <br />been met and therefore, why proceed? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.