Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />page#14 <br /> <br />Wednesday, November 2, 1988 <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked if the town houses were sold, what assurance the <br />City has that the site would be redeveloped in accordance with <br />the plan approved. Erickson responded that they had no intent at <br />this time to redevelop the site but that they have to show it to <br />satisfy the lenders. <br /> <br />Berry asked about the age of the typical students. Kinzer <br />stated that they typically were 19-20 year old female students. <br /> <br />Berry asked about the design of the town houses. Erickson <br />replied that they would have a typical town house plan and would <br />have an area of 1800 sq. feet. <br /> <br />Berry stated her concern about ponds adjacent to the daycare and <br />asked if the developer would consider putting a fence around the <br />ponding area. Haluptsok responded that the ponding can be <br />designed to hold water or to be dry most of the time. Erickson <br />added that the developer will do whatever the City wants around <br />the pond. <br /> <br />Berry stated a concern about access to Grandview Avenue. <br />Erickson testified that the access to Grandview is important in <br />the future with the town houses were to be sold off separately <br />and should not be a problem because it would just be residential <br />traffic unto a residential street. Erickson added that the <br />developer would agree to provide no curb cut but now if they were <br />assured that access could be provided in the future if reuse is <br />necessary. <br /> <br />Jim Madden, 1045 Grandview Avenue, expressed concerns about <br />traffic because currently it is difficult to get onto Lexington <br />from Grandview in the morning and at night time. Madden also <br />inquired why he did not receive a notice of the hearings. <br /> <br />Mary Ann Mark, 1039 Grandview, also stated that she did not <br />receive notice of this hearing but they had known about it <br />because of the published notice. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that it would be improper for the commission to <br />take action if proper written notice had not been provided. <br /> <br />DeBenedet <br />December <br />provided. <br /> <br />moved, <br />7, 1988 <br /> <br />Goedeke seconded to continue this matter to <br />to allow for proper written notice to be <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Goedeke, Stokes, Maschka, Moeller, <br />DeBenedet, Berry, Johnson <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />None <br />