pm_900606 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION page#13 Wednesday, June 6, 1990 worse and there is a need to insure that the developer is part of the solution. Berry stated that the properties are accessed based on front footage. Berry testified that the current policies are a result of committee work which is seven years old. Berry suggested that it may be time to reconsider the city's policy. Berry said that the developer should pay their fair share. Berry encouraged the ci tizens to petition for the sidewalk and pointed out that the full cost of sidewalk is not assessed. Keel stated that the sidewalk plan is reviewed and a prioritization of sidewalk needs completed annually. Keel also said that none of the sidewalk costs are assessed but that money is set aside each year in the pathway fund. Keel suggested that this is a unique site and that the city should consider contribution based on the short lot dimension. DeBenedet questioned why not the long dimension. Keel responded that the short dimension is what is normally used. Thomas questioned when this project was first before the city. Goedeke responded three years ago. Thomas questioned what the Planning Commission's concerns were with the original project concerning Minnesota Avenue. Johnson pointed out that the original proposal had no access onto Minnesota Avenue and that this was the Commission's first discussion of the issue. Berry pointed out that there was no public debate on the access issue. Johnson stated that MNDOT superceded the City approval on the issue. DeBenedet questioned what the zoning and plan for the site was before the original proposal. Howe summarized the history of the site pointing out that there was single family zoning and commercial zoning designation of the site. Cushman stated that there was a split Council vote on the matter and that approval from the state on Rice street was a maj or concern. Johnson suggested that staff check the history of the matter and present its finding to the city Council.