pm_870902 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville Planning commission Minutes September 2, 1987 Page 5 Don Hamilton proceeded to present a park plan that he thought would be quite workable for the area. A number of other residents who didn't identify themselves empha- sized that they were very concerned about additional office space in the area, and they emphasized that the neighbors are basically scared and want to preserve the park. Bierscheid reemphasized the City's position: it does not object to having open space in the area and continuing to use it; how- ever, the City would not pay an exorbitant price. Waldron proceeded to clarify the City's policy as it relates to commercial development. He pointed out that the City's major emphasis is the northwest area of the City which has previously been used for industrial purposes. He pointed out that the Planning Commission and Council have been very concerned where development projects impact or eliminate residential areas. He stated that the Council has developed a very specific policy to protect residential areas and, in a number of instances, the Planning Commission and City Council have denied such projects. Joanne Cushman proceeded to discuss her perspective of the general area, having lived in the approximate neighborhood for twenty-six years. She proceeded to thank Dr. Worner for coming to the meeting and discussing the issues. Maschka stated he was very concerned about the size and intensity of the proposed development. It was his opinion that it should be denied. DeBenedet moved, Maschka seconded, that the Gerald Kaufhold request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment at 1130 County Road B be denied based on the following findings of fact: 1. That the size and intensity of the rezoning request is not consistent with the Lexington area, particularly as it relates to the proposed B-3 use. 2. That the proposal runs counter to the City's policy of dis- couraging commerical strip development on Lexington. 3 . That the City has sought to protect and preserve R-1 zoning where it currently is in place. 4. That the adjacent areas to the south are zoned R-1. 5 . That the plan amendment and rezoning are inconsistent with the current land use in the area. Stokes stated it was nice to hear from all the neighbors, and he was basically perceiving that the park should be preserved to the south, but business could be allowed to the north.