My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-14-2005 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
09-14-2005 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2014 2:10:31 PM
Creation date
4/24/2012 10:52:34 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
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
Renae Lillegard Fry <br />Attorney at Law <br />2988 Rice Street <br />Roseville, MN 55113 <br />651.486.6323 <br />Fax 651.486.6324 <br />City of Little Canada <br />515 Little Canada Road <br />Little Canada, MN 55117 <br />Re: Concept Review <br />2962 and 2968 Rice Street <br />August 11, 2005 <br />Dear Members of Planning Commission: <br />1 am unable to attend tonight's meeting, but I would like you to consider this letter as my <br />response to the proposal submitted by John Matthews for the development of 2962 and 2968 <br />Rice Street. My company, Bencar Properties LLC, owns the office condo unit at 2988 Rice <br />Street in the complex located immediately adjacent to the subject property. I operate my law <br />office from that location I support the community's efforts to redevelop Rice Street and I <br />believe that an office complex at the subject property is a use which is compatible with the <br />existing complex in which I am an owner. Unfortunately, the concept plan under your <br />consideration should be amended as to the following matters: <br />1. The number of designated parking spaces is seriously inadequate for the <br />development My office complex, built by Tacheny's development company, provides <br />for 8 parking spaces per unit. There is no adjacent on -street parking. The number of <br />designated parking spaces is not adequate for the occupants of the offices that are in our <br />complex; many times each week, visitors park in non - designated spaces. I would assume <br />that the buyers of the condos to be built under Mr. Matthew's plan will be comparable <br />office type uses, and the concept plan provides for only 5 spaces per unit. There will be <br />no adjacent on -street parking for this development, so the overflow parking will likely <br />occur in our lot, which is not big enough for our own use. The concept.plan; should be <br />revised to allow for no less than 12 spaces per unit to provide adequate parking for the <br />development. This likely means that the number of actual units will have to be reduced. <br />2. Our lot was not designed for cross traffic from the subject property. We have no <br />designated drive lanes and the sight lines are not adequate to accommodate flow- through <br />traffic. I am opposed to any plan that includes cross access over our lot. <br />The concept plan provides for an expansion of the holding pond that serves our <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.