pm_880601 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Pagett 9 Wednesday, June 1, 1988 Berry indicated that she was dismayed that there was no contingency in Mr. Kaufhold's purchase from the school district for city approval. She pointed out that normally there would be a longer time between proposals and that there appeared to be no maj or change in the plans presented. Berry questioned what happened to the post office. Kaufhold responded that he hasn't pursued the post office any further because the city turned down his plan. The quick turn around in plans was due to the cost which he was facing, and his need to sell the property. Rog stated that the city had conversations with Mr. Kaufhold and asked him if he would be interested in the city finding an alternative solution and that Kaufhold had agreed to that. Kaufhold responded that those conversations occurred two months ago and he hadn't heard anything in the meantime. Rog repl ied that he respects his problem but that the city can't tell him something until we know something. Tom Turba, 1170 West Burke, stated that the neighborhood wants a park and because of the uncertainty of the long term use of the school it would be better to wait rather than approving this plat at this time. Bill Bakeman, 1178 West County Road B, stated that the city should rej ect this plan because of the similari ty to the one previously turned down and three of the four reasons for denial are still present. The proposal doesn't solve the problem because the long term use of the majority of the site is still uncertain. James Duevel, 2077 Lindy, questioned why the city is pursuing a multi-family development of the site, because multi-family development would not be wanted by the neighborhood. Dick Houck, 1133 Roselawn Avenue, questioned who actually owned the property. Mr. Houck indicated he sympathized with the desire to maintain a park but that Mr. Kaufhold should be allowed to develop the property wi thin the ci ty ordinance. Mr. Houck further stated that the city should commit to buy the park land or let Mr. Kaufhold develop the property. Mr. Kaufhold is facing an unreasonable delay. Mary Bakeman, 1178 West County Road B, testified that the park is important to that neighborhood and should be maintained. Bakeman said that Mr. Kaufhold had an escape clause in his agreement but that he waived that clause on the first of November. Bakeman also stated that the school board extended the purchase agreement to October and given Mr. Kaufhold permission to not make additional payments until that time.