My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_870304
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1987
>
pm_870304
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:47 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/4/1987
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.
/
10
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 />March 4, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />Richard Johnson, 3261 Old Highway 8, asked if customer counts per <br />hour were available. Dura replied they were not, but they didn't <br />expect significant traffic modification ba~ed on the fact that <br />the neighborhood would essentially provide the ~usiness for the <br />store. <br /> <br />Mike Mackelaney asked if the store would close at night if busi- <br />ness was not at an appropriate level. Dura replied no, it would <br />not. <br /> <br />Unnamed resident asked as <br />considered the fact that if <br />neighbors, yet the neighbors <br />project? <br /> <br />to whether the applicants had <br />it is a convenience store for the <br />don't want it, why proceed with the <br /> <br />Gail <br />sive <br />more <br />Plan <br />Thus <br /> <br />Gibson, resident of St. Anthony, stated the the Comprehen- <br />Plan probably does not reflect the fact that the area is <br />residential in nature today. Dahlgren pointed out that the <br />was first done in 1959, and again at ten year intervals. <br />the existing Comprehensive Plan is seven years old. <br /> <br />Mrs. O'Connor asked the applicant as to whether they were aware <br />of the hold ups at the previous station. D~ra replied, no. <br /> <br />Unnamed resident asked what would happen with respect to the <br />sidewalk? Janisch replied that the new owners would have to <br />provide a sidewalk as part of the development, but there was not <br />a plan with respect to a nonmotorized pathway in the rest of the <br />neighborhood. <br /> <br />McKenzie asked what the impact was of the traffic on 88 and C-2. <br />Janisch replied that this is a convenience store; thus 88 and C-2 <br />traffic should not be a problem. Janisch did point out that both <br />roads are made to handle significant traffic. However, if the <br />traffic issue was a substantial concern, it could be analyzed. <br /> <br />Mike Mackelaney asked if there would be signing on Highway 88. <br />Dura replied there would not. <br /> <br />Joyce McKenzie stated that the signs, if lit all night, would <br />concern her with respect to privacy. <br /> <br />T. D. Haapala asked <br />on property values <br />replied that they <br />ramifications. <br /> <br />the applicants if a survey had ever been done <br />before and after a store development. Dura <br />had not analyzed the home property value <br /> <br />Johnson asked for <br />to this particular <br />was read from Mike <br />tion, pointing out <br /> <br />a show of hands from the audience with respect <br />application. At this point in time, a letter <br />Ahlmann who was the former owner of the opera- <br />that the business, when he ran it, was marginal. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.