My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_861105
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1986
>
pm_861105
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:46 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/5/1986
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.
/
8
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 />November 5, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />Johnson pointed out that anyone who has attended the last six <br />meetings of the Planning Commission also should understand that <br />the idea of a moratorium is not new, and that the Planning Commis- <br />sion has been asking for a comprehensive approach to a number of <br />the City's targeted areas. <br /> <br />Berry proceeded to discuss the Planning Commission's role in <br />reviewing land use as opposed to the economic viability of certain <br />projects. <br /> <br />Wiski stated that a moratorium could be placed on the proposed <br />areas, but not to exceed six months. <br /> <br />Maschka also stated his concern that a "mini plan" should be <br />created for a number of these areas. <br /> <br />Waldron stated that the staff completely agreed with Maschka's <br />approach, and that additional recommendations will be forthcoming <br />to the City Council and Planning Commission regarding the formula- <br />tion of such plans. Waldron stated that it was the staff's <br />concern that the pure office areas, as recommended by PFS, first <br />be addressed through the moratorium; subsequently, implementation <br />of the rest of the plan would proceed relative to the approval or <br />denial of the moratorium. <br /> <br />Johnson moved, Berry seconded, that the Planning Commission <br />recommend to the City Council adoption of the resolution as read <br />by Waldron, based on the following findings of fact: <br /> <br />1. The City needs to review its development options in the areas <br />with respect to financial implications, tax revenues, spin-off <br />development property values, and job creation ramifications. <br /> <br />2. The City needs to study the possible rezoning in the area for <br />more appropriate use. <br /> <br />3. The City needs to study the Port Authority's capacity and <br />options to participate more substantially in the target area. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />The City needs to review the potential for <br />proposal from various developers to facilitate <br />intensity of the development in the area. <br /> <br />request for <br />the desired <br /> <br />5. The City needs to review the potential for modifications to <br />the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Maschka moved an amendment, which Berry seconded, stating that the <br />following items be added to the Planning Commission recommenda- <br />tions: <br /> <br />1. That additional planning activities not be limited to the <br />moratorium area. <br /> <br />2. That the City consider adoption of additions to the zoning <br />ordinance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.