Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />Pagett 20 <br /> <br />Wednesday, July 6, 1988 <br /> <br />1. That the development be constructed as per the plan dated <br />July 1, 1988. <br /> <br />2. That County Road C-2 not be constructed as part of this <br />development. <br /> <br />3. That all streets and drives be curbed. <br /> <br />4. That buildings and exterior building materials be <br />constructed as indicated on the plans. <br /> <br />5. That final landscape and engineering details be approved by <br />city staff. <br /> <br />6. That the corner site be included and developed as proposed. <br /> <br />7. That the cost of a traffic signal be included as part of the <br />development. <br /> <br />8. That the park be dedicated as proposed and developed <br />according to the plan. <br /> <br />9. That the VFW be subject to separate site plan review. <br /> <br />Berry indicated that she was uncomfortable with the shopping <br />center layout and size, and that because of that, she would have <br />to vote against the proposal. Dahlgren stated that critical <br />mass is important to the commercial project, and that the center <br />will provide a needed service to the area. <br /> <br />Stokes wondered if the developer had considered locating the <br />center on the northeast corner of the site. Dahlgren responded <br />that the location of the commercial center on the northeast <br />corner would be inappropriate because of all the surrounding <br />residential uses. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: DeBenedet, Goedeke, stokes, Moeller <br /> <br />Nays: Maschka, Berry, Johnson <br /> <br />DeBenedet moved, Goedeke seconded to recommend approval of the <br />preliminary plat. <br /> <br />Stokes inquired if it might be appropriate to have a one way <br />drive entrance. Goedeke expressed the opinion that there might <br />be a problem having only one two way entrance to the site. <br />Stokes stated that the traffic arrangement seemed to be a problem <br />