My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_870902
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1987
>
pm_870902
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:50 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/2/1987
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 />September 2, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Dunwell also discussed the various financing options that had <br />been presented to the City. <br /> <br />Stokes asked when the developer's option would expire. <br />replied November 1, 1987. <br /> <br />Dunwell <br /> <br />Berry asked as to whether Kaufhold had tried to renegotiate the <br />price of the site with the School District. Kaufhold replied <br />that he has, but the School District would not change. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked for clarification regarding the ponding proposed <br />in the most recent alternative. He also asked Worner whether he <br />advertised or proceeded to utilize Requests for Proposal as it <br />related to this project. Worner replied that he did not. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked what the previous appraisal was based on with <br />respect to the site. Worner replied that he would have to review <br />the appraisal to provide a definitive answer. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked whether Kaufhold had access to the appraisal. <br />Kaufhold replied he did not. <br /> <br />Maschka asked as to whether Kaufhold needed the complete facility <br />being proposed for the single story office. Kaufhold replied at <br />this time he did not need one hundred percent of the space. <br /> <br />Maschka asked Dahlgren to discuss the City's policies regarding <br />the intensity of business zones. Dahlgren pointed out that a <br />significant number of parcels on B and Lexington were in place <br />before the 1959 plans were effectuated; thus, a number of those <br />commercial areas had previously existed. <br /> <br />Dahlgren pointed out that next to residential, B-1 is usually <br />used as it is the most restrictive zone. Dahlgren also pointed <br />out that it has been critical to the City to resist strip commer- <br />cial zoning on Lexington. <br /> <br />Moeller asked what the County Road B setback should be. <br />replied that it is currently three feet versus the <br />fifteen. <br /> <br />Dunwell <br />required <br /> <br />Goedeke asked whether traffic to the site would be properly <br />restricted and controlled. Dunwell replied that they would have <br />to look at that in more detail, but it may have to be done. <br /> <br />Janisch pointed out that the County may limit access to the site <br />once the plan is reviewed. <br /> <br />Moeller asked if this proposal were approved, would this <br />potentially be the last time that the Planning Commission had to <br />review it. Dahlgren replied that this could be the last time if <br />it were approved and, therefore, the City could be facing a B-3 <br />zone which is the least restrictive. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.