My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_881012
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1988
>
pm_881012
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:58 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:38:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/12/1988
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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#ll <br /> <br />Wednesday, October 12, 1988 <br /> <br />Waldron reminded the Commission that they would be recommending <br />denial that they should support it with findings of fact. <br /> <br />Dahlgren pointed out that if the opposition is to the rec site <br />and financing that these can be separated out in the Planning <br />Commission's recommendations. Dahlgren also testified that the <br />city hasn't changed its basic park system since 1960 and that <br />there has been considerable increase in needs which this proposal <br />could fill. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that based on the Lexington School experience, <br />that a compromise proposal will come for this site. <br /> <br />Moeller asked if this proposal is denied what the time period <br />would be before a new proposal could be presented. Dahlgren <br />responded that the ordinance states that there be six months time <br />period unless substantial change in plan is made. <br /> <br />Berry stated that the six months time period is important to <br />allow adequate cooling off time period. <br /> <br />Berry moved and Maschka seconded to recommend denial of the <br />proposed change in comprehensive plan from school to high density <br />residential and low density residential based on the following: <br /> <br />1. The proposal does not clearly address or resolve water <br />pressure and fire protection problems. <br /> <br />2. Traffic generated from the proj ect will adversely affect <br />traffic conditions on adjacent roads. <br /> <br />3. The traffic volumes will affect safety of children walking <br />to Central Park Elementary School. <br /> <br />4. The project was subject to extensive neighborhood <br />opposition. <br /> <br />5. The issue of the City purchase of the school and 10 acres <br />for a recreation center should be separated completely from <br />the housing project. <br /> <br />6. Proposed density of the development is inconsistent with the <br />surrounding neighborhood. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Berry, Goedeke, Stokes, Maschka, <br />DeBenedet, Johnson <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />Moeller <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.