pm_880706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Page:#: 6 Wednesday, July 6, 1988 DeBenedet testified that he had sympathy for the applicant, but that he had problems with the fact that only a partial solution is being proposed. Goedeke commented that the school building will cause a problem in the near future when District 916 leaves, because it will be difficult to lease the building to a new tenant. Johnson stated that the ci ty may be better off waiting for a better solution. stokes said that it is not protect Kaufhold's financial developers were willing to shouldn't recommend denial of the Planning Commissions job to future, and that as long as the assume the risk, the commission the plat. Maschka stated his concern that the commission is faced with a policy decision that it can't deal with, and therefore, it's position should be to turn down this proposal. DeBenedet asked for clarification on the comprehensive plan amendment required. Dahlgren responded that the single family lots should be designated low density, that the park should be designated for park, and that the school should remain designated a school. Dahlgren indicated that the comprehensive plan amendment should be dealt with first, and the plat second. DeBenedet questioned whether the comprehensive plan amendment change was discussed with the applicant. Dahlgren responded that it was. DeBenedet moved, Goedeke seconded to recommend denial of the comprehensive plan change because proposal does not provide a long term plan for the use of the total site. stokes asked for further clarification on the comprehensive plan designation. Dahlgren stated that the comprehensive plan currently shows the whole site for school use, and therefore a change would be necessary for it to show the single family lots as low density, and the park as park. stokes pointed out that the park board turned down the dedication for park.