My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_891004
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1989
>
pm_891004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:08 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:38:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/4/1989
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.
/
9
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 4, 1989 <br /> <br />wietecki asked if the County had eminent domain rights. Dahlgren <br />responded yes. <br /> <br />wietecki testified that not requiring dedication wouldn't prevent <br />the County from obtaining the right-of-way in the future and <br />would only impact the cost to the County. Keel pointed out that <br />the City would be responsible for the cost of acquiring the <br />additional right-of-way which would be approximately $2.00 per <br />sq. foot. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that it is a matter of the City being consistent. <br />Johnson pointed out that the City has asked for right-of-way <br />dedication from other property owners on Dale. <br /> <br />Reinhardt stated that he is willing to dedicate on the parcel in <br />question but it is not right to go on to other parcels. <br />Reinhardt also stated that he agrees to provide the sidewalk <br />requested. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that, in this case, it may be more appropriate to <br />require funds in escrow and not the actual sidewalk construction. <br /> <br />Reinhardt said he is willing to provide the dedication on the <br />adjacent parcel in lieu of the sidewalk requirement. Johnson <br />stated that the City can't barter with the City ordinance <br />requirements. <br /> <br />Reinhardt stated that the ordinance doesn't say you can require <br />dedication on separate parcels. <br /> <br />Dahlgren testified that it is only possible to develop this <br />parcel in conjunction with the adjacent parcels and therefore, it <br />is not a separate parcel. Dahlgren testified that an alternative <br />would be to consider the proposal as a PUD, but it was decided to <br />go the variance route instead. Dahlgren added that the bottom <br />line is that this is not a single parcel functionally or <br />visually. <br /> <br />Reinhardt stated that he could develop this parcel with a <br />separate driveway to Dale street. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Goedeke pointed out that this wouldn't be the first case where a <br />sidewalk in the City was constructed which goes around a tree. <br /> <br />stokes stated that this is a case of the City vs. the little guy. <br />Stokes said that Mr. Reinhardt is developing this as a unified <br />'\ T\~ ~h~t th~ City ~O\lldn' t Vlant to deve1.op it any <br />~o.t~~l 'O:n\.\ 'v <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.