Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />page# 2 <br /> <br />Wednesday, October 4, 1989 <br /> <br />Jopke explained that City staff had received a letter from the <br />applicant withdrawing his application. <br /> <br />DeBenedet moved and Stokes seconded to accept withdrawal of <br />victor vik/Gerald Mundt request for a lot division and setback <br />variances at 476 Woodruff Avenue. <br /> <br />Roll Call: <br /> <br />Ayes: <br /> <br />Maschka, Goedeke, DeBenedet, Wietecki, <br />Stokes, Johnson <br /> <br />Nayes: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Planninq File 2017 <br /> <br />Ken Reinhardt request for rezoning from R-l to R-3A and variances <br />to allow a 0 foot parking setback and to allow 1-1/2 story <br />apartment building with 1/2 story below grade at 2381 North Dale <br />Street. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Dahlgren summarized the location of the site, its history and the <br />current proposal. <br /> <br />Keel outlined Public Works Department concerns including the <br />existence of wooden curbs and gravel on Dale Street, assessments <br />due and the need for 10 foot dedication on Dale Street. <br /> <br />Ken Reinhardt stated that the County is not interested in the 10 <br />foot dedication on the parcel to the north. Reinhardt also said <br />that the construction of the sidewalk would require the removal <br />of a tree. Reinhardt indicated that he would dedicate the 10 <br />feet on the parcel to the north in lieu of providing the <br />sidewalk on Dale Street. Reinhardt also pointed out that the <br />County has said to him that the wooden curb and gravel area is <br />good for snow plowing but it would be up to the Commissioners if <br />they wanted him to change that. <br /> <br />Johnson asked for clarification on a proposed trade off of <br />sidewalk for dedication. Reinhardt responded that in 1979, <br />Ramsey County did not want the dedication of the additional ten <br />feet for Dale Street on the parcel to the north. Keel responded <br />that he was not aware why the County would not want the <br />additional right-of-way. Dahlgren replied also that he didn't <br />know why the County would not want the right-of-way and to his <br />memory, the County has always been interested and consistent in <br />wanting right-of-way. <br />