Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />Pagett 10 <br /> <br />Wednesday, June 1, 1988 <br /> <br />Kaufhold summarized his position by saying that the proposal was <br />compatible with the neighborhood, does not result in traffic <br />increases, would not require rezoning or variances, would <br />continue use of a good building, and that he would sell the lots <br />to the city for a park. Mr. Kaufhold stated that city should <br />approve the plan and not deny his rights to develop the property. <br /> <br />Dunwell testified that based on his experience as an architect <br />and his review of the building that did in fact have a twenty <br />year life. The building is good and it would not be reasonable <br />to tear it down. Dunwell pointed out that the city rezones <br />property for a speculative office all of the time with no leases <br />in place. Dunwell stated that this is the most compatible plan <br />and that there is no logical, reasonable basis for denial. <br /> <br />Dave Jaehne, 1171 Eldridge, indicated that the neighborhoods <br />position has not changed. They would like a park and single <br />family development, and that the neighborhood does not want <br />commercial in the area. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Goedeke questioned if the current lease with 916 runs out would <br />the property owner have to re-apply for a rezoning to use the <br />site. Dahlgren responded that schools are permitted in the R-l <br />district but if a dormitory is necessary for the school that <br />would require a special use permit. Any other kind of use would <br />require a rezoning. Dahlgren commented that a lot sub-division <br />may be the cheapest most expedient alternative but not <br />necessarily the best because we do not know the long term use of <br />the school. <br /> <br />DeBenedet indicated his concern that people were digging their <br />heels in and not working together to come up with the best plan <br />for the area. The applicant has a significant financial stake <br />and we are rushing may be costly to all. DeBenedet suggested that <br />the commission continue this item for one month which would give <br />Craig Waldron time to work with the developer and to negotiate <br />with the applicant to resolve concerns. <br /> <br />DeBenedet moved, Berry seconded to table this matter one month to <br />the July 6, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. <br /> <br />Johnson inquired what would <br />DeBenedet responded that <br />original request or ask for <br />the existing plan. <br /> <br />happen if a new proposal was devised. <br />the applicant could withdraw the <br />a referral or propose plan changes to <br />