My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_900606
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1990
>
pm_900606
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:23 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
6/6/1990
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.
/
21
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#11 <br /> <br />Wednesday, June 6, 1990 <br /> <br />Donna Wright stated that she was opposed to the project and that <br />if the project moves forward, that the City should strongly look <br />at what is allowed. wright suggested that there be no access to <br />Marion street, that the City strongly look at landscape <br />requirements and make sure that the developer follows through. <br />Wright stated that the wildlife in the area needs to be <br />protected. Wright added that the caretaking of the house <br />indicates that there could be a potential problem with <br />maintenance of the site. <br /> <br />Brachman responded that they have an arms length relationship <br />concerning the house and that he would welcome people to look at <br />their other projects because their projects are well maintained. <br /> <br />Bryan Johnson, 2244 Marion, stated that he shares the concerns <br />expressed by others in the neighborhood. Johnson said that the <br />left turns out of the site are accidents waiting to happen. <br /> <br />Mark Wright stated that nothing looks or feels right about the <br />project. Wright stated that apartments are looked on unfavorably <br />by the neighborhood and the project will not enhance the <br />neighborhood. Wright testified that the neighborhood doesn't <br />want it and that the site should be left as is. <br /> <br />Johnson said that there just isn't much the City can do but look <br />at land use and make it the best to reduce potential impacts. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />stokes testified that he was not sure of legal ramifications in <br />this case. stokes added that there does not seem to be a <br />complete proposal because there are no detailed landscaping, <br />lighting, color sketches, traffic counts, or analysis of fire <br />impact. Stokes suggested that maybe tabling this item would be <br />appropriate. stokes also stated that there has to be a trade off <br />of the rights of the property owner vs. the rights of the <br />neighborhood. <br /> <br />Johnson pointed out that this is the same plan that was <br />previously approved. <br /> <br />Shardlow stated that there is no significant difference between <br />the previously approved proposal and the current proposal. <br /> <br />DeBenedet <br />Minnesota <br />this was <br />concerns. <br /> <br />said that he didn't <br />Street previously <br />reviewed by the city <br /> <br />recall seeing the access to <br />Johnson replied that <br />council only based on MNDOT <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.