My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02425
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2400
>
pf_02425
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:51:50 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 11:31:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2425
Planning Files - Type
Minor Variance
Address
715 HEINEL DR
Applicant
PUDELKO, GEORGE
Status
APPROVED
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
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 />Roger Kolstad, Rosedale Bstates <br /> <br />Case No. 2426 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />The R-7 Apartment Park District allows dwelling structures of <br />three or more units with no height limit, but with much lower <br />allowable density than in the city's highest density district, the <br />R-3 District. <br /> <br />The B-2 Retail Business District allows a wide variety of retail, <br />commercial, and office uses. <br /> <br />ProDosed Project <br /> <br />The concept of ~e proposed Rosedale Estates PUD is very simple: <br />create a row of new single family lots in the R-1 buffer area. <br />Each of ~e 24 proposed lots meet the minimum standards in the <br />Code. It is clear that ~e neighbors in 1968 would have preferred <br />a single family neighborhood across the street, instead of an <br />apartment project, and so we might assume ~at the proposed PUD is <br />in keeping wi~ ~e spirit of ~e previous approval. <br /> <br />But ~e proposed project would create a se~ of conditions that we <br />believe should be addressed. When new homes are built on these <br />lots ~ere would be a barrier, consisting of new homes and <br />possibly fences, between ~he apartments and the neighborhoods to <br />the west and north across Woodbridge and C-2. This might be a <br />benefit from a visual aes~etics standpoint, but it would also <br />sever any direct physical connections between the two. We believe <br />this should not happen for two reasons: <br /> <br />1) Children in ~e apartments (and adults for that matter) <br />would find it difficult to walk or ride bikes to friends' <br />homes west of Woodbridge, and vice versa. We believe this <br />kind of interaction should be encouraged, not prevented. <br /> <br />2) Access to the convenience store would be much more <br />difficult, causing frustration for patrons walking from ~e <br />west and a potential loss of business for the store. <br /> <br />The connect:-ion that exists now, is evidenced by a well-worn path <br />across the berm from Woodbridge into the convenience store. We <br />have asked the developer, ~erefore, to continue and encourage <br />this connection by providing two 20-foot-wide trail access <br />easements from Woodbridge street into the apartment area. These <br />would be for pedestrians and bicycles only. One is lined up with <br />Iona Lane at ~e sou~ end, ~e other is located near the north <br />end of the block. The new home lots on either side of these <br />easements are platted wider than the other lots, 90 feet vs. 85 <br />feet, to allow for greater buffering to the easement. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.