Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />Pagett <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />Wednesday, May 18, 1988 <br /> <br />would not meet these design standards. <br /> <br />Jeff Hermes, 2021 Brenner, asked what the traffic impact of the <br />planned streets would be. Hermes pointed out that there could be <br />3000 10,000 additional trips at Centre Pointe. Dahlgren <br />indicated that the proposed new road would take trips off of <br />other streets in the area and that traffic volume on the road <br />would be equal to that of County Road C. Waldron stressed that <br />traffic ~ncreases are going to happen anyway, and that this plan <br />is important to control and manage those traffic increases to <br />minimize the impact on surrounding residential areas. Johnson <br />added that there would be a traffic increase on Lydia, if this <br />new roadway in not constructed. <br /> <br />John Zimmel, 1796 Centenniel, asked what the cost <br />roadway would be. Dahlgren replied that council <br />policy on payment, and that it could be assessed to <br />property owners or paid for with tax increment funds <br />cases, constructed by the developer. <br /> <br />of the new <br />hasn't set <br />surrounding <br />or, in some <br /> <br />Dale Meier, 2900 Arthur Place, expressed concern about the impact <br />of multi-family development on Langton Lake Park unless the <br />buildings are designated by seniors and adults only. Dahlgren <br />pointed out that the city can't legislate against children. <br />Dahlgren suggested that these types of projects are not <br />typically occupied by families, but rather by empty nesters, <br />singles, and young married's. Dahlgren also testified that <br />apartment dwellers don't adversely affect parks, and that a well <br />designed project could protect the park. Johnson pointed out <br />that she shared the concern about apartments adjacent to Langton <br />Lake Park. <br /> <br />Robert Gisvold, attorney representing Mr. Eugene Pikovsky, owner <br />of the property occupied by Hyman Freightways Inc./PIK Terminal, <br />testified that they have had very limited time to review the <br />proposal and based on this limited review they are opposed to <br />the plan because it would result in the relocation of the Hyman <br />Freightways business. Gisvold pointed out that Hyman <br />Freightways has a long history in Roseville, and that they want <br />to stay because it is a successful and important location for <br />them. Gisvold stated that it would be difficult for the company <br />to relocate because of the lack of sites available and the <br />increased costs which would result. Gisvold informed the <br />commission that under the plan, relocation would be inevitable <br />and that it would be difficult for Hyman Freightways to operate <br />in the interim with the uncertainty of the timing of the <br />relocation. Gisvold requested that the commission table action <br />on this matter for 60 days to allow them to work with staff to <br />explore alternatives. <br />