My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_880518
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1988
>
pm_880518
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:54 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
5/18/1988
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Special
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 />Pagett <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />Wednesday, May 18, 1988 <br /> <br />the city and Hyman Freightways have not met to discuss the <br />proposal. <br /> <br />Goedeke told the commission that as a long term resident of the <br />community he was proud of the planning in the past, and that the <br />ci ty is entering into another phase of development. We can't <br />avoid change and therefore it is important to have this plan in <br />place to avoid haphazard development. Goedeke said that the city <br />should honor Hyman Freightways request to table action. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that perhaps a 30 day delay rather than a 60 day <br />delay would be appropriate. Goedeke questioned whether 30 days <br />was long enough. Griswold commented that 60 days seemed <br />appropriate and that if an answer was determined sooner formal <br />action could occur sooner. Pikovsky indicated that 60 days is <br />necessary because they can't devote 100% of their time to this <br />matter, that they also have a business to run. <br /> <br />DeBenedet pointed out to the commission that time would also be <br />necessary after PIK's research for a planning report to be <br />developed. <br /> <br />DeBenedet moved and Berry seconded to table action on the <br />comprehensive plan amendment relating to the Twin Lakes <br />Redevelopment Area until the July 6, 1988 Planning Commission <br />Meeting. Issues to be further researched in the interim include <br />the impact of the proposed plan on the Hyman Freightways PIK <br />Terminal property, the al ignment of the east/west roadway, the <br />impact of apartments adjacent to Langton Lake, the proposed use <br />of property north of Terrace Drive, and traffic impact. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Goedeke, Maschka, Moeller, DeBenedet, <br />Berry, Johnson <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Johnson pointed out to the audience that there would be no <br />council hearing on May 23, 1988 and that there would be no <br />additional public notice concerning the July 6 hearing, but that <br />information would be available at city hall. <br /> <br />The commission recessed for 20 minutes. <br /> <br />10% Dedication Policy in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Waldron presented the background information and indicated that <br />it was the opinion of legal counsel that this could not be a <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.