pm_880819 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Paget 3 Friday August 19, 1988 DeBenedet asked if increment financing. it was. the expansion was contingent upon tax Waldron responded that it appears as though DeBenedet pointed out that Butler may have trouble completing their building this year because of the time necessary to go through the tax increment financing process. Waldron answered that depending on how certain provisions of the law are interpreted that certain construction such as grading and foundations might be able to be started. Johnson stated that she was uncomfortable with tying the curbing requirement to tax increment financing. DeBenedet commented that not requiring curbing undercuts past actions of the city. Johnson stated that it would not be fair to people who have been required to provide curbing in the past. Grant testified that the existing building was built to the codes at the time it was built and they are attempting now to bring everything up to the current code, but cost factors would prevent them from doing this. Johnson stated that she felt that the cost of providing curb in the front area would not be excessive. Grant responded that they would have to excavate and provide an area of 800 ft. of curbing. Berry commented that the city's code needs to be enforced equally. Moeller said that curb on the concrete area is not necessary because it provides a good clean durable edge, but that it was not unreasonable to require curb in the bituminous area in front of the building. Dahlgren informed the commission that the city had allowed asphalt curb in the past, but that it has proved to be a bad investment, and the city's ordinances have been changed to require concrete curbing. Grant pointed out that asphalt successfully in the Boston area. curb doesn't work here. curb is allowed and used Johnson stated that asphalt Donicht stated that blacktop curbing has been used here since 1969.