Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />Page#10 <br /> <br />Wednesday, December 7, 1988 <br /> <br />DeBenedet moved and Berry seconded to recommend denial based on <br />the findings that there is a lack of a comprehensive solution to <br />existing traffic problems in the area, that inadequate parking is <br />being provided and that there has been no accommodation for <br />pedestrians on the site. <br /> <br />Berry stated that it is a difficult site which needs more <br />careful planning and that it may be better to wait and see if the <br />City gets more land which could be added. <br /> <br />stokes stated that the developer is entitled to a return but he <br />also has to assume some risk. stokes added that the developer <br />may have to utilize the existing facility until a better solution <br />is arrived at. <br /> <br />DeBenedet added that it was his intent that his motion include <br />direction to staff to explore more comprehensive solutions to <br />redevelopment of the corner. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />stokes, Moeller, DeBenedet, Berry, <br />Goedeke, Johnson <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Peterson asked for clarification of what other avenues could be <br />explored. Dahlgren replied that at a minimum, the idea of adding <br />the additional land should be explored. <br /> <br />Planning File 1874 <br /> <br />Ordinance revision concerning outside merchandising and display. <br /> <br />Motion Berry seconded by DeBenedet to continue this item until <br />January 4, 1989. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />stokes, Moeller, DeBenedet, Berry, <br />Goedeke, Johnson <br /> <br />Nays: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Planninq File 1912 <br /> <br />Subdivision ordinance amendment concerning land dedication <br />requirements. <br /> <br />Motion Berry seconded Goedeke to continue this matter until <br />January 4, 1989. <br />