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 />conditions, they have been unable to successfully obtain a medical tenant for a two story <br />office building and are therefore, proposing a single story office/service type building <br />similar to earlier buildings they have constructed on adjacent sites. <br /> <br />Chairman Wietecki asked if Ryan has considered cross parking easements on adjacent <br />properties that they also own. <br /> <br />Carlson stated that parking easements could be considered but may be difficult because of <br />lender requirements. Carlson pointed out that they are attempting to provide additional <br />parking along the east edge, as well as a driveway connecting the site to the adjacent <br />property. <br /> <br />Chairman Wietecki asked if the developer could build a half submerged parking deck on <br />the site. Carlson indicated that constructing parking decks is financially difficult. <br /> <br />Member Sandstrom asked what the hardships would be to justify a variance. <br /> <br />Jopke stated that potential hardships included the contractual agreement with the City <br />requiring a 35,000 square foot building and requiring construction to occur by July of <br />1997. Another minor hardship is the fact that the project site is not rectangular. <br /> <br />Member Thein questioned if the tax increment was for soil problems only. Jopke <br />explained that there was nF being provided for soil contamination, as well as for land <br />write down, clearance, and other activities. <br /> <br />Member Rhody asked what the effects of retaining a 35,000 square foot building would <br />be. <br /> <br />Carlson stated that they are bound by the development agreement with the City to <br />construct a 35,000 square foot building. <br /> <br />Chairman Wietecki stated he would have no problem granting a variance if two concerns <br />are met. These concerns are that there be proof of parking and that landscaping along <br />Arthur Street be well done. <br /> <br />8. <br /> <br />(b) <br /> <br />Roseville Properties sketch plan for the southwest quadrant of County Road <br />C-2 and Old Highway 88 was withdrawn. <br /> <br />8. <br /> <br />(c) <br /> <br />Schedule for meeting and/or tour for housinl: density/housing design <br />meetinl:. <br /> <br />Chairman Wietecki pointed out that there is a need to look at density, especially as seen <br />by the previous discussion concerning the James Addition area. Wietecki stated that <br />there is a need to look at alternatives and options. <br /> <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.