My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_881005
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1988
>
pm_881005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:57 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:38:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/5/1988
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# 4 <br /> <br />Wednesday, October 5, 1988 <br /> <br />Dahlgren pointed out that the reduction in depth should not be a <br />problem because there would still be a 313 ft. deep parcel which <br />is larger than a city block. Dahlgren commented that it would <br />not be appropriate to grant a variance at this time but a <br />variance request could be considered when a specific proposal was <br />being considered in the future. <br /> <br />Kaufhold stated he had no plans to develop the site and that he <br />would like to keep the tenant that he has. Kaufhold also stated <br />that he had no problem with the alternative solution. <br /> <br />stokes questioned whether staff had presented the al ternati ve <br />plan to the developer. Jopke responded that he had discussed the <br />concept with Mr. Dunwell over the phone. <br /> <br />Tom Turba, 1170 W. Burke, stated that he wasn't aware that the <br />developer could build on the site without coming back for City <br />approval. Dahlgren replied that the developer could build <br />without future City approval if it involved only one building, <br />however, multiple buildings are typical for this type of project <br />and in all likelihood they would have to come back for City <br />approval anyway. <br /> <br />Turba asked if the City could stipulate that any development in <br />the future would require public hearings. Johnson responded that <br />would not be likely. Dahlgren informed the Commission that <br />zoning would have to stand on its own and that 90% of similar <br />developments in the past have required a PUD and public hearings. <br /> <br />Joe Hafner, 1165 Burke Avenue inquired whether the access from <br />Lexington would be for pedestrians or vehicles and where parking <br />would be provided for the park. Dahlgren responded that it would <br />be for pedestrian access only and that no parking would be <br />provided. <br /> <br />Hafner stated that there were existing parking problems in the <br />area from teams using the softball field and that they sometimes <br />block his mailbox. Bierschied replied that there are other <br />fields in the community where there are also no parking lots. <br />Parking is provided along adjacent streets. <br /> <br />Johnson inquired if the problem could be controlled with no <br />parking signs. <br /> <br />Bierschied stated that this is just a proposed solution and that <br />they would follow their typical process to meet with the <br />neighbors to work out the design of the park. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.