My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_960110
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1996
>
pm_960110
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:34:35 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:56:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
1/10/1996
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 />Planning Commission Minutes <br />January 10, 1996 <br /> <br />Nayes: <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: <br /> <br />(a) Planninl: File 2802: Moved to consent agenda. <br /> <br />6. <br /> <br />(b) <br /> <br />Planning File 2803: Comprehensive Plan amendment for the potential <br />redevelopment of the Tower Place Business Park area, located in the area south of <br />County Road C, west of Fairview Avenue, north of County Road B and east of <br />Cleveland Avenue. <br /> <br />Chairperson Wietecki introduced the item and briefly described the history of the study <br />by the Planning Commission and the Tower Place Subcommittee. Chairman Wietecki <br />introduced Community Development Director Dennis Welsch to give a more detailed <br />presentation on the matter. <br /> <br />Welsch stated that the focus ofthis hearing is on obtaining public input concerning the <br />findings of the Planning Commission and Subcommittee. Welsch described the area and <br />summarized the process which the Subcommittee used to arrive at its current <br />recommendation to the Planning Commission, including a study of issues, strength, and <br />problems with the area, identification of alternative solutions, ranking of alternatives, and <br />preparation of a summary report and recommendations to the Planning Commission. <br />Welsch stated that the Subcommittee that was formed had five meetings and focused on <br />an area as a whole, not on individual properties. The Committee identified the following <br />strengths in the area: <br /> <br />1) Proximity to metro area, interstates, and regional center, upscale technology. <br />2) Quality work force with a variety of housing nearby. <br />3) Transit in area, soon an east-west trail in area. <br />4) Current lease/rent cost is competitive. <br />5) Good site for small businesses and contractors. <br />6) Incubator for new businesses. <br />7) Good, reliable supplies of electricity, water, telephone/mobile phone. <br />8) Safety and proximity to fire station. <br />9) Rail access and trucking industry support. <br />10) Visibility. <br />11) Good public services from County and City. <br />12) Access to noon luncheon areas. <br /> <br />Welsch said that the Committee identified problems in five areas including: land use, <br />transportation and circulation, infra-structure and capital improvements, environmental <br />issues, and Tower Place preservation. The general goals recommended by the <br />Subcommittee in each of the problem areas include: <br /> <br />1) Land use: Create positive land use relationships, create new investment <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.