pm_871202 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 December 2, 1987 Johnson replied that this is a positive situation, that the lot will look much better than it did in the past. DeBenedet asked as to whether there would be a pathway on Skill- man. Janisch replied that no, it was not on the pathway route, and would essentially not be going to any direct designation. In addition, the renovation did not exceed fifty percent, which would not result in the pathway requirement being effectuated. DeBenedet asked who built the sidewalk on the Frontage Road. Janisch replied it was constructed by MNDOT. Bill Edwards, the owner of the apartments to the west, said he was concerned about the fact that the trees were cut back, the lights were too bright, and the fact that the developers moved the property too close to the property line. Boots Halverson stated he was concerned about the curbing on the north side of the property line, and some type of sidewalk or buffer would be extremely helpful. Waldron and Cushman discussed some of the concerns that they had received from the neighbors regarding the traffic, and the need for some buffering and screening in the area. Mr. Capp, the developer, stated he was surprised at the number of complaints, based on the fact that everyone in the area thought the bowling alley was bad and, therefore, would probably prefer the new retail development. Capp pointed out that he would complete all of the screening such as evergreens on the south, some type of wheel blocks on the north, and screening on the west with respect to the apartment properties. Dahlgren stated that it may be most appropriate on the west to construct a fence and utilize evergreen landscaping on the southern part of the property to buffer the neighbors. DeBenedet asked if the neighbor would allow Capp to install and maintain a fence on his property. Edwards replied that he would not. Johnson pointed out that a fence can be maintained on the property line by removing certain segments of the fence for main- tenance purposes. Berry asked what the impact would be if the lot were set back ten feet farther on the west. Dahlgren replied that it would be a loss of approximately four additional spaces. Dahlgren stated it was his opinion that a fence would still best remedy the situa- tion. An unnamed resident asked about moving the lot closer to the east. Janisch pointed out that parking was not allowed in front of the building after the Snelling Avenue upgrade.