My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_880907
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1988
>
pm_880907
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:57 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:38:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/7/1988
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />page# 5 <br /> <br />Wednesday, September 7, 1988 <br /> <br />Berry moved and Goedeke seconded to recommend that the <br />Comprehensive Plan Designations of the site be amended from <br />medium density residential to high density residential, low <br />density residential, park and business and from business to high <br />density residential and low density residential because it is <br />more appropriate land use for the site. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />DeBenedet, Berry, Goedeke, <br />Maschka, Moeller, Johnson <br /> <br />stokes, <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Goedeke moved and Maschka seconded to recommend approval of <br />rezoning from R-2 to R-1 and B-4 and from SC to R-3A, B-4 and <br />R-l. <br /> <br />stokes questioned if the proposed single family lots would be <br />part of the PUD. Dahlgren responded that single family lots <br />would be included in the rezoning, the plat and PUD. <br /> <br />stokes questioned why the single family lots would be part of the <br />PUD. Dahlgren responded that it was appropriate to include them <br />as part of the overall plan. <br /> <br />stokes questioned if the single family lots would have any <br />obligations in the PUD. Dahlgren responded that the single <br />family owners would be part of the plan, but not necessarily a <br />part of the association which is responsible for the maintenance <br />of the other area. <br /> <br />stokes questioned who determines whether or not the single family <br />lots would be part of the association. Dahlgren replied that <br />that would be determined in the association documents. <br /> <br />Goedeke questioned whether the developer would be selling the <br />single family lots to others. Gregory answered that it was their <br />intent to sell the lots to a Roseville builder. <br /> <br />Goedeke asked if the sale of the single family lots was <br />considered in the negotiations for tax increment financing. <br />Waldron replied that it was discussed, that it is part of the <br />plan, and the single family lots have to be developed. <br /> <br />stokes inquired about the dollar amount considered for these lots <br />in the tax increment financing numbers. Waldron responded that <br />they used approximately $120,000 dollars per house , multiplied <br />by the mill rate and assessed value. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.