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 Page 4 <br />March 4, 1987 <br /> <br />Goedeke asked when the old station burned down. McKenzie replied <br />it was approximately October, 1985. <br /> <br />Mackelaney again stated his concern w~th respect to the <br />and the potential noise. <br /> <br />traffic <br /> <br />Richard Johnson stated that based on his experience with <br />Fuel, such facilities do generate new traffic above and <br />the usual neighborhood traffic. <br /> <br />Food-N- <br />beyond <br /> <br />Ralph Busher, of St. <br />development on this <br />existing neighborhood. <br /> <br />Anthony, stated he hoped the <br />site would be more compatible <br /> <br />rezoning <br />with the <br /> <br />McKenzie stated that this particular parcel could <br />work well for residential, plus the area has indeed <br />residential is more appropriate. He also stated his <br />respect to safety as it relates to the gas station. <br /> <br />potentially <br />changed, and <br />concerns with <br /> <br />T. D. Haapala asked what Food-N-Fuel's response was with respect <br />to the opposition of the neighborhood. Dura stated it has hap- <br />pened before, and he was convinced that they would, indeed, be a <br />good neighbor. <br /> <br />Stokes asked if they purchased the site contingent on rezoning. <br />Dura replied that they did have such a Purchase Agreement in <br />place. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that they should have met with the neighbors. <br />Dahlgren reiterated that at every planning meeting, he did <br />suggest the company review the proposal with potential neighbors. <br /> <br />Stokes stated that in projects such as this, there is a business <br />risk and maybe the developers should have a chance to move for- <br />ward with the business. However, he appreciates the neighbor- <br />hood concerns in the area. <br /> <br />At this point in time, Dahlgren was asked to discuss the permit- <br />ted uses in a B-3 area. <br /> <br />T. D. Haapala pointed out his concerns with respect to the fact <br />that what had occurred in 1959 in this neighborhood is not <br />particularly germane to the residential character of the neigh- <br />borhood today. He also stated his concerns with respect to a <br />Comprehensive Plan not really serving as a guide. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that the Planning Commission does look at the <br />as a general guide, and something that is flexible. At <br />point in time, Johnson entered two letters into the record; <br />from Alison Myhers and the other from Mike Ahlmann. <br /> <br />plan <br />this <br />one <br /> <br />Johnson then asked for a show of hands of the neighbors that <br />supported the project, which were zero. Johnson stated her <br />concern that the developer didn't meet with the neighborhood; <br />thus this application should be tabled. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.