My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_880302
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1988
>
pm_880302
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:53 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/2/1988
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.
/
8
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 <br /> <br />Page# 5 <br /> <br />Wednesday, March 2, 1988 <br /> <br />drawings did not indicate whether or not the exterior material on <br />the rear of the building would be the same as the front. <br /> <br />Janisch informed the commission that the sanitary sewer line to <br />be relocated was controlled by the Hetropolitan Waste Control <br />Commission, and that their approval would be necessary. Janisch <br />pointed out that the design of the storm water holding ponds on <br />the site did not meet his desires for one large pond to handle <br />all of the property. Janisch also commented that access <br />easements would be necessary between the new shopping center and <br />the existing shopping center to the south for the truck access <br />Chuck Dufresne indicated that the access easements would be <br />provided between the two properties. Dufresne testified that <br />this proposal is necessary to accommodate tenants which could not <br />be accommodated in the Rosedale Square project, He pain :ed out <br />that the proposal would match the Rosedale Square shopping <br />center, and have brick all around. <br /> <br />Johnson asked Dufresne to respond to staff's ponding concerns. <br />Dufresne replied that they wanted to keep their development <br />options open on the undeveloped parcel north of Terrace Drive. <br />He did not want to preclude any options by installing one large <br />pond on that property. <br /> <br />Janisch inquired if the developer could make provisions to link <br />the two ponds together and provide one outlet into the ditch. <br />Dufresne replied that he could not respond because he did not <br />know the cost or the effect of such a solution. <br /> <br />Goedeke asked how much of Terrace Drive would be put in at this <br />time. Janisch answered that the developer could petition the <br />city for the improvement, but he anticipated that it would only <br />be put in to the driveway dt this time, because che exact <br />alignment of Terrace Drive is not known. <br /> <br />Waldron asked the developer to provide information about whether <br />or not the adjacent property owner was willing to provide an <br />additional right of way to complete Terrace Drive. Dufresne <br />stated that they have talked with the adjacent property owner, <br />and they are most receptive to entering into negotiations with <br />the city to provide the necessary right of way. <br /> <br />Berry asked Dufresne to respond to the requirement for additional <br />landscaping within the islands in the parking lot Dufresne <br />responded that they would provide it if staff wants it, but they <br />did not show it because landscaping does not survive well under <br />those conditions. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.