HomeMy WebLinkAboutpf_02471
June 14, 1994
AI Kehr
988 W. County Road D
Roseville, MN 55126
Dear Mr. Kehr:
The Roseville City Council, at its June 13, 1994 meeting, approved Parkridge
Development Corp.! AI Kehr's request for withdrawal for Planned Unit Development
(PUD) concept development plan approval, rezoning from R-1 to PUD at 674,656,
and 646 W. County Road C.
If you should have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at 490-2236.
S·
Michael F
City Planner
City of Roseville
:cf
2660 CMC CENTER DRIVE . ROSEVILLE · MINNESOTA · 55113 · 612-490-2200
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 6-13-94
ITEM NO.: D-9
Item Description:
Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section:
~ Reports and
~ cá Recommendations
Withdrawal ofParkridge Development Corp./AI Kehr request for
PUD concept development plan approval, rezoning from R -1 to
Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 674,656, and 646 w.
County Road C.
Department Approval:
j)f~
Background:
1. On June 6, 1994, Mr. Kehr provided a written request for withdrawal of his
application for PUD concept development plan approval, rezoning from R -1 to
Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 674,656, and 646 W. County Road C.
2. The Planning Commission, at their June 8, 1994 meeting, recommended approval
of this request for withdrawal.
Staff Recommendation:
1. Staff recommends that the City Council approves Parkridge Development
Corp.! AI Kehr request for withdrawal of the application for PUD concept
development plan approval, rezoning from R-l to Planned Unit Development
(PUD) at 674,656, and 646 W. County Road C.
Council Action ~...eauested:
1. Motion to approve Parkridge Development Corp./Al Kehr request for withdrawal
of the application for PUD concept development plan approval, rezoning from R-l
to Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 674,656, and 646 W. County Road C.
Staff Report by: Dennis Welsch
June 6, 1994
Steve Sarkozy, City Mgr.
Mike Fa1k, City Planner
Dennis Welsch, Dir. Community Development
2660 Civic Center Drive
Rosevi11e, Minn. 55113
After considering the action taken by the Planning Commission
and the City Council, the Parkridge Seve10pment Corp. requests
that the proposal presented by Parkridge at 646, 656, 614 W. C. Rd.C.
be withdrawn from the table and no further hearings be held at this
time.
Respectfully submitted
Parkridge DeveIoment
(i¡! J~
Al Kehr: Partner
~~~I lJ I
r
I
c--
'--- I~
~\== - I~
-
----
-
-
I I l
I
I Î Site map for Parkridge Development's
of their application for rezoning from
I N 646,656,674 County Road C w.
I
J I
I I I
I~ I I
I I ffiIIIJ EEHHE I
I r T . /
I I OIIIIIJ tffiHH] -~~=
I I I r r-
""
~ ITIIllJJ I I
I r T I
withdrawl
RI to PUD at
June 10, 1994
Steve Sarkozy, City Mgr.
Mike Fa1k, City Planner
Dennis Welacy, Dir. COIIIIIUIlity Development
2660 Civic Center Drive
Bosevil1e, Minn. 55113
We, Parkridge Development, withdraw the proposal presented
by the Parkridge Development Corp. at 6IJ6, 656, 614 W. Co. Rd. C.
and that no further hearings be held.
Respectfully
Parkridge Deve10paent
øJ~
Al Kehr: Partner
Ð-~
PLANNING REPORT:
DATE:
June 8, 1994
CASE NUMBER:
2471
APPLICANT:
AI Kehr/Parkridge Development
LOCATION:
674,656,646 W. County Road C
ACTION REQUESTED:
PUD Concept Development Plan approval,
Rezoning from R-1 to Planned Unit Development
and Preliminary Plat approval
I. BACKGROUND
As the members of the Commission are well aware, both the City Council and
the Planning Commission have been considering a proposed amendment to
the RoseviUe Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan from low density
residential to medium density residential for the property generally south of
County Road C and west of Dale Street. Parkridge Development has also
applied for rezoning from R-l to Planned Unit Development for a portion of
this property. On May 11, 1994, the Planning Commission continued
consideration of the application for rezoning until June 8, 1994. In part, it
was the Commission's feelings that prior to considering a rezoning request,
the City should detennine how the land under consideration will be
designated in the Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan. At their regular
meeting of May 23, 1994, the Roseville City Council considered a
comprehensive plan amendment from LR to MR for the Kehr, Borgstrom,
Britz, Booth and Salverda properties, generally located south of County Road
C and west of Dale Street. On a 4-1 vote, the City Council chose not to
amend the Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan in this area of the City, but
rather have it remain guided for low density residential development. The
Roseville Comprehensive Plan defines low density as 4 units per acre or less.
On May 11, 1994, the Planning Commission, in continuing the application for
rezoning until June 8, 1994, also stated that the project infonnation submitted
to date, was not adequate for consideration. As of this writing, no new
-f-
infonnation has been received.
2. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
This application for a rezoning to a Planned Unit Development for a
residential townhome development project differs from the 1992 application
in that it now includes three lots totaling 3.67 acres in size and is proposing to
reduce the number of units from 29 to 23 units. This plan proposes a unit
density of 6.26 units per acre compared with the previous proposal of
approximately 10 units per acre. The following is a summary of the proposed
development:
Site Area
Building Area
Percent of Building Coverage
Percent of Hard Surface
Percent of Green Space
159,865 sq. ft. (3.67 acres)
33,310 sq. ft.
29%
24%
470/0
This density is inconsistent with the LR designation in the
Comprehensive Plan for this area.
By way of review the property under consideration is located on the south
side of County Road C. It is immediately adjacent to a single family
residence to the west and a single family residence to the east. Included with
this report is a letter from Mr. Borgstrom the eastern neighbor indicating his
willingness to negotiate a sale of his property so it could ultimately be
included in Mr. Kehr's townhome development proposal. To the south of this
property is the City Park land. The 23 townhome units proposed would be
single story units in building clusters of two or three units. Each unit would be
2004 sq. ft. in size. Two access points from County Road C are proposed to
serve the development. Internal streets would be a private system with street
widths of 28 ft.. If the streets were to be dedicated as public streets even
with a 50 ft. right-of-way building setbacks would be approximately 15 ft. As
currently designed the front yard setbacks from the curb line to the units is
approximately 25 ft.
The landscape plan as submitted provides for a good combination of
deciduous evergreen and foundation planting materials. Per City Code
minimum caliper dimension for deciduous trees is 2 1/2" and minimum height
..'2.-
for evergreens is 6 ft. Of concern with the plan would be the location of the
colorado spruce at the entryways to the project. While the landscape entry
statement is attractive the height of the spruce in this location would be an
impediment to traffic visibility. The City's "visibility triangle" says that no
over story planting should occur in a triangular area 30 ft. back from the
property comer along both rights-of-way. The other area of concern relates
to the interface with the property to the east. Should the sale of the
Borgstrom property not come to fruition a much stronger screening strategy
will need to be incorporated into the plan. The Borgstom residence is quite
close to the east property line of this proposed project.
As indicated earlier the 23 proposed units are all single story units. The 2
units in the southeasterly comer of the project will be walk-out units in order
to accommodate grade changes in this location. Of the 2004 sq. ft. in each
unit, 1544 sq. ft. is living area, and 460 sq. ft. is garage. A copy of the
building elevation and the floor plan is included with the plan review
package. As currently presented the exterior materials are proposed to be
prefinished metal siding. The developer has indicated that if budgets pennit
some brick may be added to the front elevation
The grading and utility plan has been submitted with this application.
Engineering staff has review these plans and have raised some concerns in a
following section of this report. Of particular importance is the fact that this
design is proposing no on-site storage of surface water but rather would
collect surface water in a stonn sewer system that would move the water to a
regional stonn water facility east of Dale Street. While a regional stonn
water facility to handle all development in this areas should be seriously
studied and considered one does not exist at this time. It should also be noted
that the plan to move stonn water relies on a stonn sewer pipe moving across
City park land.
{
During the public hearings on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive
Land Use Guide Plan questions were raised about traffic that would be
generated by this or similar proposals. Townhouses typically generate 6 to 7
trips a day. With 23 units this would amount to 140 - 160 trips per day being
generated from this site. If the Borgstrom piece was added to the
development it is anticipated that 7 more units could be developed. This
would increase the average daily trips to and from the site to 180 - 210 trips
per day. 1991 traffic counts indicate that County Road C currently has
-3-
average daily traffic of 8800 and Dale Street south of County Road C has a
average daily traffic of 5950. Both Dale Street and County Road C have the
capacity to handle the added traffic that would be generated by this proposed
project.
On May 11, 1994, the Planning Commission continued consideration of this
application until June 8, 1994, stating that the Planned Unit Development
project information is not adequate to be heard at this time..
En2ineerin2 Considerations:
The Engineering Staff has reviewed the submittal and has made the following
recommendations:
a. Need a concrete sidewalk along County Road C.
b. Both the new proposed Storm Sewer and Watermain that exit the
property to the south cross city park property. There is an existing
storm sewer and watermain located in County Road C which should be
sued and not cross city property.
c. The proposed 12" PVC storm sewer line between manholes 1 and 12
as shown on sheet 2 of the plans is at 11.71 % grade. The water in that
section of pipe will be running at 18 feet per second. The invert of the
pipe will not last long at that grade. The water should not run greater
than 10 feet per second. Additional manholes would be needed to slow
the water down.
d. The plan does not show the location of the existing trees and the
number that would have to be cut down if the park property is used.
e. AIl existing wells on the property must be removed as per State of
Minnesota standards. All existing sanitary sewer and water services
that are not going to be used must be removed as per City of Receival
standards.
f. Any deferred assessments due to the re-zoning must be paid as per city
policy.
- 4 -
g. Proposed manholes number 13 and 16 must be moved to the south so
the proposed new connections to the existing manholes in County Road
C enter as close to 90 degrees as possible.
h. No landscaping plans were available to review.
1. Rain water will stand in a low area on the west side of the site. This
water must be picked up with a catch basin or grade the property so the
water does not stand in one location.
3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:
As indicated earlier, the Planning Commission and the City Council have
been considering an amendment to the Roseville Comprehensive Land Use
Guide Plan from ·low density residential to medium density residential for
the property, generally south of County Road C and west of Dale Street.
Both bodies have also been considering Parkridge Development's
application for rezoning from R-l to Planned Unit Development for a
portion of this property. These issues have been the subject of several
public meetings and much discussion. In the final analysis, the City Council
has concluded that it would not be appropriate to amend the City's
Comprehensive Guide Plan to provide for medium density residential
development in this area. Therefore, Parkridge Development's request for a
rezoning from R-l to Planned Unit Development for a 23-unit townhome
development project with a density of 6.26 units per acre is inconsistent
with the Roseville Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan.
(See attached for additional recommendations).
.. 5'..
On June 3, 1994, Mr. ){P.hr noqylHtal the rnmmißÏon to consider a continmltiœ of the
~~.:;;.., ;.... CouoÕi1 hr.ori.,. 'q;¡ddi"f die JCcIv JWpninlID a R...d.nti.1
. r adred that the hP.arinp be coÕtimled until after the ComprP.hen~ve Guide
Plan revisinn~ have been COJQpleœd.
ALlERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1) By MOTION, recommend denial of the Concept Plan fŒ a 23 unit townhœse Planned Unit
Deve~ at a densi1y of 6 units per acre as being too dense (4 units is the maximwn), not
conåmmt with the existing Comprehensive Guide Plan Designation of the site as Low Densi1y
Residential (as per the Council action of May 23, 1994), and an inadequate set of pJam regarding
drainage, grading, Jandscaping. (State,in the máion, as many reasons as the Commission may have
foc sœh as recommendation. This would send the issue on to the Ci1y Council fŒ further action.
If the Council denied the PUD remning request, the Code stipulates that the applicant could not
reawIy fΠa similar rezoning hearing on this site fΠat least 6 months.)
2) By MOTION, recommend approval of the request as consistent with the PlaIming Commission's
action of May 11, 1994. (This is a problem because the PUD Concept application and submittals
are nΠcomplete as viewed by the staff and because the Colmcil has determined that the
. Comprehensive Guide Plan shoold remain Low Densi1y - single family or at least, units no more
than 4 per acre.)
3) By MOTION, acce¡t or deny a request of the applicant to continue the Concept Plan Rezoning
Hearing to a specific PlaIming Commission meeting date, pending the completion of the
Com¡rd1ensive Guide Plan. If this action is chosen, the Commission shoold state that it will not
accqt an application unless it is complete and the awlicant pays for all additional public hearing
nOOfication costs. (Staff estimates that the earliest this may 0CClØ" would be the October 12, 1994,
mætùJg.)
4) By MOTION, accept or deny a request of the applicant, to table action on the project
indefinitely. The Commission should ~ that such a request will require a completed set of
awlications and submittals and another set of public hearings on the Comprehensive Guide Plan and
the PUD Concept PJan. The applicant pays fΠall additional public hearing notification costs.
..(þ-
.
.
I I~ IIII,I Iii IWIII 'II \ \ I ü I ! I
~~. -~. lä I I~ jl' III hi I III. ,
:4:...: w * ~ !! i!il: ~ .
Il ~i ,"1 ~ - .1_.' -' ~< ' - . ,. ~ ~...< \ '" ~ ¡U'¡i' 111Iill'!I't ,t"li¡r.'11 ~ l,i'I':,'I' i
"'-" · "" , -"'1-::, .-'i- ')':> · ~ u,rl,,7 - 1\'\"1'1111111' i '~It ,
- -~.-, '-~!ì ;:~ X:::~; ~=::: '¡';",:::\ ~ ~ :::.-:: ~~IMtlblllll ~ d ..
- ,'-;:-':;;--r ~ -1...1" ;\ ( -" ..L. " . -~ì) -" ~fW" h ., 1') ";111' ~Ih II't"I"
IJ~-::-: ~ ~ \I!~ i \ " ~ ; ~ ~£ ~~. - I . I H~rf.'~II~II'I! "III~'I'I II'
litH
i/":: r> I \ : ~ r.'i1 ....~- / \ 'I' '" '-I 1;1111' n
II I ~' '.i ~ : I ,II , I ! - ~ , J fï ',"li1Uhfhi!jl !IIIII! 1111)111
It/ ~I/.a 'I.' ~ .; 'IIII~ / K'-fP"~ I. '-; {l l.!. ¡I!MIIIII!!I¡!, 1.1111111, l'II'UIOO
\ ~~ 1..- \...! 1/ ~ 1 .. M/ ~!J. __ _ ullhllllllUJlht ul III 1
¡;,,,, "\, 11 ;~ \. ';' . ,\/ .). r . .
lit ,.A¡ n.., r AlIl ..... _! \, d; I 'IJI!.,I' \\IIW 1
Ui. "~i I
;c/ P"'3 I " T I 'I . . .
J', '~'\. ~ ,~1~ \ '.,A' I~ l II' 1111"
Ii~ ~i=' ~ j ~ _~_ -:"- -c '", -~ ~I'! ,i I II Illti i,IIII, I111 "t'll ',llltl: II~
~ !o-. '-J .. , · ~""'- .., i 1 bl. Ii. 1,1' I III!.!!;!"
1 ~?', · " II '-. v ,,~ ~ \)-'- I!I! 'd'II)II' h, Ili~ñÏl~IL
-" ~,' ' h ì .-.}(' ~.. / 1.../ 1//... ..
\ I ~ \.11'\ .L.-I h -..~.. "J ~ '//;;/
(II - '\ ,. t::..:: - ~ I ;':--'1, / /, / ~ 0- ""'" 1(11,.1 1'1 :111"1; 1» II
ñ '---, '~'-, ~ ' r';; -IJ..;- ':::;;~ ~oÓ,';,i ~(::: If-!It' 11 !I!,ill\l '1111 r II!,I II
' ...."'. ' .....- - ....·1-_-=- n, '/,;"¥.' /, /. · " ~ d II
' ", 'A , :,(,__ J' , / , " .,
' "' - - '" .,.,.~, , .. .. I .
' ." '" II' '/'/'.. .
.7i
( ~'..!:::.~ '~¿~~:<--:'; ':';:...- i
. ... -- .------- ~....", ", ,,,0. --: .,
.............-:: -- . -- - - .:::- - -- -. .....-::. /~~'
..,~..ç....;;::: ~~-~--=::-. ---::.:-::..- ---- /,. . ./ ,..
. /...... <-...~.,,;:..-::.:.. . .:-=--- -- -=::::-./ '».. .-/ /' ,
(.....____... /' ~ """-"'Sc....-:.- -:::;..:.... -, .. - - _::: ... ,. ,
/"'.......-: ' ~ ;....-: .........
-
/./I:Z~~IIIII. ( I \1\ .' c:,....
- I 'l í '. I ." \. '- I .
1/1)' " ~.I. \ ~._<\ \ . ~!~ ,. ..
II \ '. ') \ } \ I
/? / I} 1 / /'/./ ; ,
.~~/ /1 .¡. . / ./ ,
I
. ,
.)
At.
. .'. i.:)
i~II!i, n ~'II lit '
N II I Sllq.1 I
I ~ .
L
-\0 -
¡¡¡
.
..
(
\ \\ /~ II I ~
\.~~-'I I 11g¡~ )
_ -: t ~~~'M\-~ :.-~-;-:
i\\~ ~ i,\ ",i""::,,, ','i, Ii t~ I '.
~1~~¡1 ' , ,,¡:¡,.II!!JH illiliH' .:. ,S 1 I t
::I:~>. .<~~¡ .,¡¡:!:., ~~¡i1\¡:; '::U!!I~ ¡~!1!qn ;¡'¡<P;! tI
'Ii::;.; .;i!iP! ::11\1:; ¡:¡!liili ¡¡II!!!;I :HI:!ip ì:::¡¡\¡, ~,¡ \ I ¡ I ¡ ¡ \ \ ¡
',," :' .., ,,''''; 1::1::' '1\; : : I,'"~ t;: : I ; ;
... ::1'. 'I'!' ;¡¡¡ ,:.~\\L: ¡ili,I :: \1 !I¡ 1·~11:. t ~
"', ,p, ~~'; :di![;:; ~i'HI:: ':t ¡'I:' ,Hldl ;; I; . i I
Z -. :- Ii 'i¡,:';' '!T¡ :,qi:', ;I¡\\I\\\ lii!\liìl' \;\\1\111\ 1\\\\11\\1'=.1'.\' '.'..' \ \ \; I' .ì
II .¡';¡¡ '''I' ,!i,i' d,' I "llil Ii ':1111,' ~. . .. 1
. "::!¡¡' ",i,1 I ,I. ¡III I ¡ '.,
, ' ,'" ';I¡I, "110'111 iPI\I'illfll\" ¡PII'!;I ¡II'I!;I ¡'I'I dill;'!;
¡:¡liI:P !!i¡:!!': ,¡¡,I!;:; ;:¡,I\¡lì ¡:II 111\ ¡¡11111 ¡III In! :11, ik dil¡H' :ili!l\~¡
. " . I~:: :.¡ \1: ':-:¡ ii¡ :¡¡Iii,,! ¡¡ !ii\t~ i¡i¡i5'l ;;1j-.I-' ',\:\¡¡¡~
_ ,i!;·::¡\:; ,;¡\¡\i,i ¡,:llnl\ :\\\¡I\li 11111\\111\1\\1:\\ \\\\!~i HIl,' . ¡:I\:\I\'
.-..... ,,;:;;¡,:¡PI, "i¡¡i::; '¡qliilj ,'~1111 :få\ :: :i;¡II~' ~ '.j -.0.. .
....-=- ' ': ;~:'i':\\ll:" 'iii!:\: ,:11\\:\\ ::!\¡I¡\ Hili;::: ii'!i!!Ji ' ~-:" !
-¡¡r ~ Iii' ~; - I ~"1. ,~) "¡: '.' -S:", ,¡\\!\f'\i: "\II\:\¡ 1\:,\\1\\\ :1,:\:\ !, ~ .:\\\::!
--r--, \ -'iI ¡ ~£- ~ ~~~;::,::, ;¡., ',I ,iL:: \@\\II,::HVC.I,I.:,"qi'
\ \ \ \.!I ~ ~ __::.:>,:;, :!. .,. .;,"::':\.1'; .,. . ,,~
~\ \ \\..:. )_1_ \ ." ",;'- "i:,.; / \\1:'1\:\ c !i" ~,:
~ '- \ .........' ~ ...../ '7'~ " '" ..:::~:' " "" ."'. I' ,','
~~.... '_~~~\~.. ~ \ .:.....,.. i".·· ~ .iIi'itI.
~ ~~~~ 0.- ," , ;i.\ ,.' .'. I" . '''; ,Yi:,· ..
"'l:~~' ~.., . 10. -( , ,.. ,,: ii'i':' .1"\"" Ziil ,.: .:;,
\\ ~ ~\ ,\,\ ¡tit:":' .~,¡\" :¡:: ",Iii;" ',\.:?'i\\:t ,.
LSh\0. \\\\<~ 0~ · '<"'0/) .....\¡':'.,;::_~ ;1(;. nlli,','¡) ~~;;!I!¡:'I::,i\1 !,l:i!'~!lr\;,.
'~~,~ \'~~~~~ { ..' ,.,:',J ,/.,' '/:i' ¡'\\!I¡ii ;'iI:n! >'1'::\: ¡,:,!" _
ra- ~'~~~\~~~ \" ~:::::p/'''¡rJJi'::::::,:1r., ..','i'
~"\ \', \,\.\\~ ,\.. \.. \ -/ ,; ; ~/.,' 11 .:·IJI .,;; ¡¡J¡¡'¡"
. ~ '0> ~. ~i~~\~ ~~~ ~ :. '\ ~r.;~ (;~, ~:':"':::,'T I~ '11!'I::\illil i'il:!!\! i ·
~ O.è' (~:Î~~~ d ""'~/. :'!~~~:~;':::¡:,:Ii:,:llli::i','ntiill¡~(
~,\.J' t_- ~ K..J ~~~ " "'-. \',':,,:¡ r,:,:,,:: ""',:,""::':.' ",+':: "", ',","::~~'
. J'~ -., , I "!i':.:·
\...--. -= ..:x 'I' " , ,;:'ÎI", 'II" , ¡:I::"
__~ --......: _. 1,1 11'\q I 'II'" I' 1\ '\1 I' ; i II' Illfli, 01\1 ¡\I Iii 'Hilt!
-. \ . 1:li':':,1 \11\1\"1"11\1 ;:! I\ii ,¡llliil¡ \\11111 ¡Willi; 1¡¡¡;I;i ,'\!,L: ,:,!:P\' 1\\t\Ij'
I. I 'I I ! II i',' I 1"1 . I "I II, I .. i 1 ~
i.' , .,,' :\ ,,,;,;,,, 'i'll" :' 1I¡i' ,,11,,1,\111 \'I\'I! 11:1'111','1, 1::'\1'11'1 ¡:\\\ill~¡
ti.. ' " " ", I' "", '1",1 "'I'll \" "" " 'I I 'nl .
:I\, "lli il'!\I~. "ili:l; . ¡' ¡I\III I:I':\!;\ "\;\;1 ; I¡:h,; ,!I\dlll :, ,, I,I :'dlìJ:
111" 1 II · II :;1;11 t· 'II I.!I,~ :~ I ,1", .,II~ I,. ", I ~ '. ',,: ,.' 1,1, : ~!!: .' I"\! '¡llill!'
. 1;". It J II 11;,\11\ ;:i\liI:i :¡'iI:;;, :':Iil'\l iji 1\\11 ,¡,IIT\ i\ !i:: ; ¡¡iill:!1 \:1\\\ i Itl!lilii
= ,~!m\ii¡ lul\ ~\~I :\\\\\\\i! ':\\ii\\\\ i¡\:\\::\ :~\\\¡\\: \1\11!!i\ \\\\:\1\\ \ \\\\iil\ ¡'iiilil! .\\\~\i\ iiiilli':
!Î~miili tiii .iml . \i\\¡i\ii ¡¡¡\\illl II!\ ii!1 iilll!ll! \Î\! \\1m\\¡ III'! r mml\i \i\II\\11 \I\\\\II!
II U I" ·1~1 hUh! · II1!hl'I""¡ 'I ¡¡¡!!il!¡ Imlll!i ¡ill illi 111\llm \\\\\\m \\\11\11\ \1. \I!!: i!\!I\\\\ \\\\\\I!\ ii!,!!I!!!
. 1!. .HII!f Ii "'¡fa l' nlt"ill'"1'11 i I ]1 IHil\i\i. :.\..\!\i\\\ 11\1.\1\\1\. \.\\.\.\\1.\\ \\.\\11\\11\ \.\.\.\\\\\1\ II.! \\\\i \.\'\\I\\\\:.i\.\.\\i.!.\.:..\\\\\\:"
. tils ;¡ 1r.11 \1 ,I ," IIIU! r IU 1 I I ¡1'liil': ;'!lIIIi' ¡11ì11::1 ','1\11<1 lilllli ;;i.Ii!l ". I "" II,,;"'· ,;,.
It 11\' \,i':'\II.',1 i.' \.\.\, ~\,\,i.\~t il&I··lli,llll,f,~11tl\ill~ ',1\1 "\\1\\1\1\ \\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\m \\\\11\\\ \\\\\\\\1 \1\\\\\\\ \1\1\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\ :¡\\\\I¡\ \\11\\\\:
lin u Si.. C 'r \'~\II\II \~ \ ~ \ I \1 \ I \ I, !
...---
!
.
i
'i
~
.
I
i
~
..
. ~ ~
.
~
-
-\ I -
\1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ll~ \\~\
,
J.-b
II
ta III &;
I I' I
_·~..--J-lL..-H..L..+bL..
::J. avo.. AJ.Nnoo
-------
---
.. - ..;,;.
.
.
\ ~
. I
\ \
. I
Ii
tJI
\ \
. I
\ \
-1':
. ,
.
I \
II
al ~
, .
.'
~
~!
11
I~
.'
.1
:
C--
..
.
.. ~..--'
~--------------.
.. ~.. - ..
- B-
a
June 6, 1994
~(( k~CC
t( I c(¡ I t"t ~
'1Jf\Á-t-
Steve Sarkozy, City Mgr.
Mike Fa1k, City Planner
Dennis Welsch, Dir. Community Development
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minn. 55113
After considering the action taken by the Planning Commission
and the City Council, the Parkridge Seve10pment Corp. requests
that the proposal presented by l}arkridge at 646, 656, 614 W. C. Rd.C.
be withdrawn from the table and no further hearings be held at this
time .
Respectfully submitted
farkridge Deve10ment
Cil J~
A1 Kehr: Partner
June 3, 1994
Steve Sarkozy, City Manager
Mike Falk, City Planner
Dennis Welsch, Dir. COIIIDunity Development
2660 Civic Center DriV8'~
Rosevi11e, Minn. 55113
Following the meeting that we had June 1, 1994, I consulted
with the principals of the Parkridge Development and we concluded
the following would be in the best interest of all parties con-
cerned.
I - A continuation of both Council and Planning Commission
hearings until such time the comprehensive plan as pro-
posed by Vists 2000 be in place and approved ~ both
Council and Planning Commission.
2 - The Planning Commission felt that there was inadequate
information on site drainage and ponding. We have pro-
posed two options. It will take considerable time for
the Civil Engineers to prepare the documents. The doc-
uments must then be submitted to the City Engineer for
approval. It will be impossible to have these documents
prepared, for submission, for any near future hearings.
3 - We feel that the wide distribution of public hearing
notice should be confined to the three hundred fifty (350)
foot radius as mandated by code and ordinance, avoiding
confusion with other properties in the near vicinity
that are being considered for change in the comprehensive
plan.
4 - We respectfully request, that all public hearings as it
pertains to the Parkridge Development, be continued until
such time that the comprehensive plan, as proposed ~
Vista 2000 be completed and approved by the City Council
and Planning Commission.
Respectfully submitte
Parkridge Development Co.
OR J{~
Al Kehr: partner
city of Roseville
Community Development Department
MEMO
June 3, 1994
FROM:
Neighbors of the KdIr Proposal
Demris WeJsch, Community Development Director ~
TO:
RE:
REMINDER OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AND PUBUC HEARING - JUNE 8th
On May 23rd the City Council decided that the Roseville Comprehensive Guide Plan for the Kehr
parcels (and other a<ljoining parcels) should remain Low Demity Residential with a density of 4 units
or less per acre.
Mr. AI Kehr has one more hearing before the City of Roseville Planning Commission. It will be
held on Wednesday, June 8, 1994, at 7:30pm in the City Council Chambers. The purpose of the
hearing is to review his Rezoning from R-l to Concept PUD for a 23 unit townhouse. He has the
right to this hearing as part of his original awlication. Mr. Kehr has fmnally requested (June 3,
1994 letter) the Commission to continue the rezoning hearing to a date after the entire revision of
the Comprehensive Guide Plan is completed - probably in Sqmnber or October of 1994.
This hearing is the last hearing the staff is aware of regarding the KdIr proposal.
Hopefully, the Commission will forward a recommenda1ion to the City Council on the same evening.
The Council would then take up the same issue on June 27th.
If you have questions, fœl fTee to contact me at 490-2232 or Mike FaJk, our city pJamer, at 490-
2236.
On ~~ 3, 1m, .Mr. KrJiT ~ thç C9"'P'!~'J) to (pn~ ;¡ C(}ntinuation of the
PbJnqiqr Ço~ ~pd CQ.nçi1 .~~ ~~f ~ TÇ~ ~~ tø ;¡ ~~~1
PUD. Mr~ 1'~ "~ ~ ~ tgriJlP bç cont!RI~ ..1 aftq" ~ r~1ten~ve Guide
PI¥- revision~ h¡we been COJQPleted.
ALTERNA¡IVE ACI'JONS:
1) By MOTION, recommend denial of the Concept Plan for a 23 unit townhouse PIamed Unit
Development at a densi1y of 6 units per acre as being too dense (4 units is the maximum), not
consistent with the existing Comprehensive Guide Plan Designation of the site as Low Demity
Residential (as per the Council action of May 23, 1994), and an inadequate set of pJam regarding
drainage, grading, landscaping. (State, in the motion, as many reasons as the Commission may have
for such as reoommeodation. This would send the issue on to the City Council for further action.
If the Council denied the PUD rezoning request, the Code stipulates that the awlicant could not
reaw1y for a similar rezoning bearing on this site for at least 6 months.)
2) By MOTION, reoommeod approval of the request as consi&ent with the Planning Commission's
action of May 11, 1994. (This is a problem because the PUD Concept aw1ication and submittals
are not complete as viewed by the staff and because the Council bas determined that the
Comprehensive Guide Plan should remain Low Density - single family or at least, units no more .
than 4 per acre.)
3) By MOTION, accept or deny a request of the applicant to continue the Concept Plan Rezoning
Hearing to a specifi£ Planning Commission meeting date, pending the completion of the
Comprehensive Guide Plan. (Staff estimates that this may be the September 14, or October 12,
1994, meeting.)
4) By MOTION, acœpt a request of the applicant, to table action on the proja,1 indefinitely. The
Commission should ~ that such a request will require a completed set of applications and
submittals and another set of public bearings on the Comprehensive Guide Plan and the PUD
Concept Plan.
J."f.J..4] J..I.., ..1..7-"
.,
· ROSEVILLE ·
Neighbors fight
to keep it small
Resìdents lobby agaìnst shìft
to medìum density -and wìn
PAM HENl'GES
The fate of one of Roseville's
residential neighbQrhoods wason
the line last week and residents
applauded council members'
decision to keep it in place.
The city council voted to keep
the 700 and 600 blocks of W.
County Road C at a low density
residential designation, rather
than bumping it up to medium
density.
Mayor Vem Johnson was the
only vote for the change, saying
that the area was an ideal spot for
development of this type. "I think
it would fit in there nicely and 1
don't think it would have a signif-
icant impact on the surrounding
residents."
The request for medium density
was made earlier this year by AI
Kehr, who planned to turn his
three sites on W. County Road C
into a multi-family development.
"I am really at a loss on how to
vote on this - this is. a very diffi-
cult decision to make," Council
Member John Goedeke said. "I
don't think this type of housing
affects the neighborhood as much
as people think it will. And 1 will
have to go along with the idea
that this area should be designat-
ed medium density residential."
Goedeke later changed his mind
and voted against the density
shift. .
"I did not have a hard time
making up my mind. You can see
all the statistics you want, but 1
think impact is in the eye of the
beholder," Council Member Barb
Mastel said. "I just don't think
this project fits into this neighbor-
hood and 1 can't support anything
that doesn't fit into our city."
The process that got the request
to its final vote was a complicated
one and Dennls Welsch, the city's
community development director,
said staff recommendations went
back and forth a few times.
At the March 9 Planning
"._.._4_~__~__ ___..:_..... ......... ...._.--
"1 will not support
this proposal because
there is a balance in
that area and 1 do
think the increased
traffic. will affect the
quality of life for .
those residents."
-Pat Johnson
after .·residents. expressed· their
opposition/t~.the . potential
changes,. the commission recom-
mended denial.. of anY c~ges in
the land use designation .:.. includ-:
ing the Kehrproperty.
"The commission cited..tl1e ~.ck
of support from adjoining neigh-
bors to. the west, the American
Legion and the Qwners to the east
of the Kehr property," Welsch
said.
But on May 11, the commission
reconsidered its previous contra-
dictory recommendations of May
9 and April 13 and recommended
the change from low to medium
density for the.land, including the
Kehr property.
Increased traffic in the area and
a loss of wildlife were two of the
concerns residents expressed
which Council Member Pat
Johnson heard them loud and
clear.
"I will not support .this proposal
because there is a balance in that
area and' 1 do think the increased
traffic will affect the quality of
life for those resideñts,'? Johnson
said.
Not only will the traffic affect
the reside~ts, but the· deçrease in
open land will change the charac-
ter of the neighborhood, one resi-
dent said.
"I live directly across from the
proposed development and if this
goes through we won't see fox
anymore, or deer and owls," she
... .~..." . ., .. .. - . .--
'"
"
/
.,
~/
residents."
The request for medium density
was made earlier this year by AI
Kehr, who planned to tur~bis
three sites on W. County Road C
into a multi-family development.
"I am really at a loss on bow to
vote on this - this is. a very diffi-
cult decision to make," Council
Member John Goedeke said. "I
don't think this type of housing
affects the neighborhood as much
as people think it will. And 1 will
have to go along with the idea
that this area should be designat-
ed medium density residential."
Goedeke later changed his mind
and voted against the density
shift. .
"I did not have a hard time
making up my mind. You can see
all the statistics you want, but 1
think impact is in the eye of the
beholder," Council Member Barb
Mastel said. "I just don't think
tllis project fits into this neigh~-
hood and I can't support anythmg
that doesn't fit into our city."
The process that got the request
to its final vote was a complicated
one and DelU1is Welsch, the city's
community development director,
said staff recommendations went
back and forth a few times.
At the March 9 Planning
Commission meeting, the com-
mission recommended to tbe
council the approval of AI Kebr's
request to cbange the
Comprehensive Plan land use
designation on his property to
medium density . residential,
Welsch said. The commission
also requested the entire area
between the Kebr and Dale Street
and the American Legion proper-
ty also be evaluated for a poten-
tialland use change.
The City Council took no action
on the Kehr property at its March
28 meeting, delaying action until
after the Planning Commission
holds another hearing and makes
a second recommendatiOQ.
And then at the April 13
Planning Commission meeting,
U." lallU UIIC UClll1;;lIaUUII - 1I1(;IOU-
ing the Kebr property.
"Tbe commission fite<JJbe lack
of sUPport frolD adjoiningneigb-
bors(o the west, tJ¡e American
Legion and the Qwnersto the east
of the Kehr property," Welsch
said.
But on May 11, the commission
reconsidered its previous contra-
dictory recommendations· of May
9 and April 13 and recommended
the change from low to. medium
density for the land, including the
Kehr property.
Increased traffic in the area and
a loss of wildlife were two of the
concerns residents expressed
which Council Member Pat
Johnson heard them loud and
clear.
"I will not support this proposal
because there is a balance in that
area and I do think the increased
traffic will affect the quality of
life for those resideñts," Johnson
said.
Not only will the traffic affect
the reside1,1ts, but the decrease in
open land will change the chara~-
ter of the neighborhood, one resI-
dent said
"I live directly across from the
proposed development ând if this
goes through we won't see fox
anymore, or deer and owls," sbe
said. "My young cbildren stay up
to all hours of the nigbt in the
summer to watcb the owls in the
trees over there. If this happens,
we will feel more like a St.Paul
neigbborbood than a Roseville
one."
Even tbougb this proposal
failed, Mayor Jobnsonsaid it .is
only one of many areas 10
Roseville ·'on the taþle" as the
council looks at long-tenn land
use in updating the city's
Comprebensive Plan.
"Our staff has been working on
a IS-year Comprebensive ~lan
and this request comes fust
because Mr. Kebr pushed his up,"
Johnson said. "But there will be
many more sites that we will be
looking at in the future." .
~.
701 West County Road C
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
May 14, 1994
Ms. Pat Johnson
Roseville City Council
City Hall
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
RE: Planning Commission Meeting, May 11, 1994
Dear Council Member Johnson:
As we discussed at the Planning Commission's meeting of May 11, 1994, I am writing to express
my concern regarding the Commission's failure to adequately discuss proposed changes in the
comprehensive plan for the area of County Road C and Dale. The City Council sent that issue back
to the Commission with specific instructions that the Commission was to discuss and give reasons
for either changing or denying changes in the city's comprehensive plan.
Of course you were at the Commission meeting, and you are aware that they did no such thing. The
Commission's discussion was not merely wholly inadequate, it was wholly nonexistent. At the
meeting, the Commission approved a motion to recommend a change in the plan for the
southwestern corner of County C and Dale from low density to medium density residential,
provided that any medium density development take steps to ensure that traffic is guided away
from residential streets.
I am hopeful that the City Council will consider some very major objections to the Commission's
treatment of this issue. First, the Commission simply did not respond the City Council's directive
that it fully consider the issue before making any recommendation. Rather, as soon as the issue
came up for discussion, one Commissioner moved to recommend the change to medium density,
and the motion was passed with a five-minute, at most, discussion about the impact on traffic. No
consideration was given to impact that the proposed changes will have on Central Park, which
borders the area, especially the potential impact on the Park's wetlands. No environmental
consideratlons were raised at all. There was no discussion as to the character of the area, whether
the city would benefit from a change in comprehensive plan, whether the change fit into the city's
goals for its future, whether the area residents were in favor of or opposed to the plan, nor any other
relevant issues, except traffic concerns. Moreover, the Commissioners indicated that traffic
should be steered away from "residential" areas, by which I assume they meant that those of us who
live on County Road C either do not share the other residents' concerns about traffic, or that we are
not sufficiently "residential" to count.
The Chair of the Planning Commission rejected the possibility of further comment from the public
in general, and from neighboring residents in particular. I have no doubt that this was
procedurally correct, but the fact that the Commission was apparently unable to remember any
citizen concerns other than traffic certainly showed that public comment was nonetheless needed.
I live on the northern side of County C, directly across from the area for which changes are
proposed, and thus I am very aware that there are many, many more concerns among the residents
that traffic, although that is also a concern, since many of us have small children. There are
many other quality of life issues that the Commission utterly failed to discuss, as well as the fact
that the area is quite evenly balanced right now, and a further change to increase the density could
detrimentally change that balance.
Second, the issue of traffic, although clearly relevant to any consideration of changes in the
comprehensive plan, was dealt with in the Commission's decision in an inadequate manner.
They approved a change to medium density, with the proviso that any development address traffic
concerns. This would seem to be more properly a zoning issue than a matter of the comprehensive
plan. As a city commission member myself, I understand that the Planning Commission
members are ordinary volunteer citizens, and I applaud them for caring enough about the city to
get involved. Nonetheless, that does not absolve them of their duty to immerse themselves in a full
understanding of the issues, which include the City Council's clear directive that the Commission
discuss all the implications of a comprehensive plan change prior to any discussion about zoning
in general or the Kehr townhouse project in particular.
I would make two alternative suggestions. The City Council eould open this issue up for public
hearing, so the Council itself could hear both from the residents and from any proponents of the
comprehensive plan change. In the alternative, the Council could remand the issue again to the
Commission, but provide it with very specific instructions about delineating the types of issues
involved, and the necessity of extensive discussion of all relevant issues, including
environmental and residential impact. And, although the Commission was correct in noting that
it had already entertained public comments on the issue, further opportunity for the
Commissioners to familiarize themselves with issues involved in the plan change would be
beneficial.
I do want to thank you and the Council for the time and consideration you have given the proposed
changes in my neighborhood. It would ease my mind tremendously to know that, whatever
decision is ultimately made by the Council, changes are not made without at least some discussion
about the impact on those of us who live with our families in this area.
Si~
Jill Bergquist
486-8661
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
~-2)-~'f
DATE: 5-2J-(}3
J-4~1
ITEM NO.: F-l
Department Approval:
Manager Reviewed:
Agenda Section:
Hearings
Item Description:
AI Kehr/Parkridge Development request for PUD Concept
Development Plan Approval, Rezoning from R-l to Planned Unit
Development and Preliminary Plat Approval at 674,656,646 w.
County Road C.
Backe:round
1. For some time now, both the'City Council and the Planning Commission have been
considering a proposed amendment to the Roseville Comprehensive Land Use Guide plan
from low density residential to medium density residential for the property generally south
of County Road C and west of Dale and Parkridge Developments' request for rezoning
from Rl to Land Unit Development for a portion of this property. Consideration of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment is the subject of a public hearing scheduled earlier on
this agenda. Public hearings on the request of the Parkridge Development for rezoning
were scheduled for the Planning Commission on May 11, 1994, and for the City Council
on May 23, 1994.
On May 11, 1994, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the application for
rezoning until June 8, 1994, stating that the planned unit development project infonnation
was not adequate for consideration at that time. It was also the Commission's feeling that
prior to considering a rezoning request, the City should determine how the land under
consideration will be designated in the Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan; therefore, it
is recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing on Parkridge
Development's request for rezoning from Rl to Plan Unit Development and preliminary
plat approval at 674,656, and 646 West County RoadC until June 27, 1994.
Council Action Reauested:
1. Motion to continue the request of Parkridge Development for rezoning from Rl to Plan
Unit Development and preliminary plat approval at 674,656, and 646 West County Road
C.
Staff Report by: Michael Falk
The Planned Unit Develqm1ent Coo:eptual Awmval requires the following documents:
1. Preliminary plat and other subdivision code requirements
2. General infœ-nmtion on appJican1, COIl.\1JJtmts, and control of land.
3. Legal descriptions
4. Existing compo plan and zoning of site and all prqx:rties within 100>'.
5. All site develqm1ent within 100> feet.
6. A written smtement describing the proposal.
7. Site Conditioos:
3. Contours and conceptual grading plan (should be part of preIiminary plat)
b. Area devŒd to residential use, common ~ spaceIJanŒcapin, streets, parlång
c. Floor areas
d. Schedule of stages of develqnnent
e. Provisions for reslrictive covenants and care of common ~ space
f. Schematic utî1i1¥ plans and adequacy for water, sewer, storm sewer.
/IIJ~, I~
May 18. 1994
AI Kehr
988 W. County Road D
Rosevi11e, MN 55113
RE: PARTRIDGE RIDGE STORM SEWER PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Dear Mr. Kehr:
Thank you for meeting with us to discuss stonn sewer issues related to your proposed townhome
project near County Road C and Dale Street. Based on our discussion, we uilderstand that you
are working with George Reiling. the property owner of the southeast quadrant of County Road
C and Dale Street. to develop a joint stonnwater detention area to serve both your development
and Mr. Reiling's future development. Generally spca1ång. the development ofrcgional ponding
areas can be consnucted more efficiently and provide better stormwater treatment than small on-
site facilities. .
The purpose oftbis letter is to outline the stormwater design information that we wi11 need to
review your P.U.D. application. The purpose of this infonnation is to demonstrate that the
proposed drainage system wiD work. Detailed storm sewer design plans are not needed as part of
the P.U.D. approval. It should be noted. however, that detailed plans wiUbe required before a
building pennit is issued. The following is a list of drainage information needed for P.ll.D.
approval:
~ The proposed on-site stonn sewer system should be shown on the site utility plan. This
should include pipe sizes, catch basin locations, and pipe invert elevations.
~ An exhibit that shows the connection of your site to George Reiling's site east ofDaJe
Street. This exhibit should detail pipe location and pipe size.
~ An exhibit that shows the size. rough grading. and location of the proposed stormwater
po~d on George Reiling's property. The purpose of this exhibit is to show that a pond
large enough to fulfill the needs of your site, as well as George Reiling's, can reasonably be
fit on the property.
. Stonn sewer calculations that show how the proposed pond was sized. The pond should
provide flood storage for a lOO-year rain event for both your property and George
Reilings property. The calculations should assume that Mr. Reiling's property is
developed. The outlet for the pond should be designed to limit the rate of runoff to an
existing 10-year event.
2660 CIVIC CI~NTI~H I>RIVI~ · HOSRVJLL)~. MINN)~S01'A · 55J 13·H.!99
(d2.4<JO-2200. TDD ()]2·490-2205
Page 2
AI Kehr
May 18. 1994
~ The storm sewer system should be designed to convey a 100-year storm event from your
site to the storage pond on George Reiling's property.
~ The storage pond should be designed according to NURP guidelines. These guidelines are
. the standards with rcgard to water quality.
Again. the purpose of the above information is to demonstrate that an adequate stonnwater
system can be constructed to service your development. More detailed construction plans do not
have to be prepared unûl the land use issues and P.U.D. have been approved by the City Council
and a building permit needs to be issued.
Please contact me at 490-2220 if you have any questions about these requirements or would like
to discuss them further. I would be happy to meet with your engineer to discuss the teclmical
aspects of these requirements in more detail.
¡;~dJ
,
Karl P. Keel
Public Works Director
KPK:cy
00: Michael Falk. City Planner
Lon Aune. Assistant Public Works Director
REMINDER NOTICE
On Wednesday, May 11, 1994, beginning at 7:30 p.m., the Roseville Planning
Commission will hold its regular monthly meeting. On the agenda are two items of
interest to residents near the AI Kehr-Parkridge Townhouse PUD located west of
Dale on County Road C.
First, the City Council has asked the Commission to clarify what the Commission's
long range land use recommendation is for the Kehr property and other adjoining or
nearby property. The Commission will have to re-read their two past motions and
clarify them with another, more specific recommendation on the Comprehensive
Plan long range land use designation(s) for the area.
Second, the Planning Commission is required by the application process to hold a
public hearing on the Kehr-Parkridge Townhouse PUD proposal. This is a rezoning .
hearing from a R-l (single family) zone, to a townhouse Planned Unit Development
zone in which 23 single story townhomes are proposed on 3.6 acres. This public
hearing was originally opened on April 13 , 1994 and continued to May 11.
After the Planning Commission makes its recommendation, the next opportunity for
resident comment/participation will be May 23, 1994 at the City Council meeting.
If there are questions, feel free to contact Michael Falk at 490-2236.
TO:
APPLICANT:
PURPOSE:
LOCATION OF
PROPERTY AND
LEGAL DESC:
TIME OF
HEARING:
PLACE OF
HEARING:
HOW TO
PARTICIPATE:
ANY QUESTIONS:
REMINDER OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Roseville Residents within 350 feet of 674, 656, and 646 w.
County Road C.
Parkridge Development Corporation.
PUD Concept Development Plan approval and rezoning from R-
1 to Planned Unit Development (PUD).
674,656, and 646 W. County Road C. (Legal attached)
Planning Commission meeting: Wednesday, May 11, 1994
City Council meeting: .Monday, May 23, 1994
City Hall Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive
1.
2.
You may attend hearings and testify.
You may send a letter before the hearing to Michael Falk, City
Planner, 2660 Civic Center Dr., Roseville, MN 55113 or fax to
490-2275.
Call Michael Falk , City Planner at 490-2236 with the following
information:
Planning File #2471, Planning File Name: Parkridge Development
Mailing Date: April 28, 1994
(See Map on Reverse Side)
(
=
-
\
rnnnum rnnn OIIIIJ ~ ~
~ unrn ~ ~ rnnnmn m
m:
ill
[f
PLANNING FILE 2471
Parkridge Development Corporation request
for rezoning from R-l to PUD and Concept
Development Plan .Approval at 674 County Road C W
Parkridge Development Corporation - PUD Concept Development Plan
approval and rezoning from R-l to Planned Unit Development (PUD).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
East Parcel
That part of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 11,
Township 29, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at a point 33 feet West
and 33 feet South of the Northeast comer of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4
of Section 11, Township 29, Range 23; thence West on a line parallel to the North
line of said Northeast 1/4,263.88 feet to point of beginning; thence West on the
same line 98.96 feet; thence South 409.83 feet to ,a point 395.24 feet West of the
East line of said section; thence East 98.81 feet; thence North 410.10 feet to place
of beginning. Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Middle Parcel
That part of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11,
Township 29, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at a point 33 feet West
and 33 feet South of the Northeast comer of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4
of Section 11, Township 29, Range 23; thence West on a line parallel to the North
line of said Northeast 1/4,362.84 feet to point of beginning; thence West on the
same line 98.97 feet; thence South 409.56 feet to a point 494.05 feet West of the
East line of said section; thence East 98.81 feet; thence North 409.83 feet to place
ofbegjnning. Ramsey County, Minnesota.
West Parcel
The West 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast
1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 23, according to Government Survey
excepting the southerly 2/3 of the West 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the
Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 23. Ramsey
County, Minnesota.
..
n___~~ 97,/
~=j~~r~ .~....
.. . . .. ·~~..~~..~~......_u~~ ~~_u_.. ~~~~_~_
.____n _'_'0'__ ___~________
. .~~~
*0 ~,;~?þ~-<'~/__
.".uÄ../~ ,~~cAtìh\./~---
--- -- ---~------
--- - ~......._.__._-,-_.--_._.._~------_._-
__ ____.____.__._ .__n_ _..__~._______u 0' "_ _______
___'n'_"'" _ .___._________________..____.~___~.._ __ ____.n_'._
. _ . _.._._________..__.________m__.___".,._~___,._·_·,'_ ___
----~-----_.__._._--_._.._-_._------------ ---
--- -~-- ------
- ----------------~-~~- ---
-- -- -- -- --- --- ~- - ------ -- -- ----
- _____ __..____.___________n_______._..____.....,_...__.___ '_00'
.__n___._____.._._.____'__
- -- - ----------- --------.--
- -- -- - - - -- --- -- -- -- ---- ------ ---- - - --
__ - - _m ___ ___ ___ ___
PLANNING REPORT:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
May 11, 1994
2471
DATE:
At KehrlParlaidge Development
LOCATION:
674,656,646 W. County Road C
ACTION REQUESTED:
PUD Concept Development Plan Approval,
Rezoning from R-l to Planned Unit Development
and Prelitninary Plat Approval.
1. BACKGROUND:
In Decembe.J Il r -. .he Planning Commission reviewed an application for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Re70Ding to Planned Unit Development
for the property located at 674, 656 and 646 W. County Road C. The
Development at that time consisted of 29 Townhome Units. Ai that time it
was felt that the City did not have a current policy framework to assist in
evaluating this request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and
Rezoning. Consequently, it was recommended and Mr. Kehr agreed to
withdraw his application until enough work bad been completed on the
Comprehensive Guide Plan Update to provide the City with some quide in
reviewing his request.
The previous agenda item was intended to çlarify the Planning Commission's
recommendation on the proposal to change the Comprehensive Land Use
Guide Plan designation for the property east from Mr. Kehr's west property
line to Dale Street, ftom LR Low Density Residential to MR Medium Density
Residential. If the Commission recommends approval of the amendment to
the Comprehensive Guide Plan in this area to Medium Density Residential
housing then Mr. Kehr's application for a Planned Unit Development rezoning
would be consistent with the Guide Plan. Ifhowever, the Commission
decides to recommend denial of the Comp Plan Am~ndment Mr. Kehr's
application for a Planned Unit Development would be inconsistent with the
land use designation in this area.
2. DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY:
This application for a rezoning to a Planned Unit Development for a
residential townhome development project differs from the 1992 application
in that it now includes three lots totaling 3.67 acres in size and is proposing to
reduce the number of units from 29 to 23 units. This plan proposes a unit
density of 6.26 units per acre compared with the previous proposal of
approximately 10 units per acre. The following is a summary of the proposed
development:
Site Area
Building Area
Percent of Building Coverage
Percent of Hard Surface
Percent of Green Space
159,865 sq. ft. (3.67 acres)
33,310 sq. ft.
29%
24%
47%
By way of review the property under consideration is located on the south
side of Comity Road C. It is immediately adjacent to a single family
residence to the west and a single family residence to the east. Included with
this report is a letter from Mr. Borgstrom the eastern neighbor indicating his
willingness to negotiate a sale of his property so it could ultimately be
included in Mr. Kehr's townhome development proposal. To the south of this
property is the City Park land. The 23 townhome units proposed would be
single story units in building clusters of two or three units. Each unit would be
2004 sq. ft. in size. Two access points from County Road C are proposed to
serve the development. Internal streets would be a private system with street
widths of 28 ft.. If the streets were to be dedicated as public str~ets even
with a 50 ft. right-of-way building setbacks would be approximately 15ft. As
currently designed the front yard setbacks from the curb line to the units is
approximately 25 ft.
The landscape plan as submitted provides for a good combination of
deciduous evergreen and foundation planting materials. Per City Code
minimum caliper dimension for deciduous trees is 2 1/2" and minimum height
for evergreens is 6 ft. Of concern with the plan would be the location of the
colorado spruce at the entryways to the project. While the landscape entry
statement is attractive the height of the spruce in this location would be an
impediment to traffic visibility. The City's "visibility triangle" says that no
over story planting should occur in a triangular area 30 ft. back from the
property comer along both rights-of-way. The other area of concern relates
to the interface with the property to the east. Should the sale of the
Borgstrom property not come to ftuition a much stronger screening strategy
will nee4 to be incorporated into the plan. The Borgstom residence is quite
close to the east property line of this proposed project.
As indicated earlier the 23 proposed.units are aU single story units. The 2
units in the Southeasterly comer of the project will be walk-out units in order
to accommodate grade changes in this location. Of the 2004 sq. ft. in each
uni~ 1544 sq. ft. is living area, and 460 sq. ft. is garage. A copy of the
building elevation and the floor plan is included with the plan review
package. As currently presented the exterior materials are proposed to be
prefinished metal siding. The developer has indicated that if budgets pennit
some brick may be added to the front elevation
The grading and utility plan has been submitted with this application.
Engineering staff has review these plans and have raised some concerns in a
following section of this report. Of particular importance is the fact that this
design is proposing no on-site storage of surface water but rather would
-collect surface water in a storm sewer system that would move the water to a
regional storm water facility east of Dale Street. While a regional storm
water facility to handle aU development in this areas should be seriously
studied and considered one does not exist at this time. It should also be noted
that the plan to move storm water relies on a storm sewer pipe moving across
City park land.
.
..
During the public hearings on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive
Land Use Guide Plan questions were raised about traffic that would be
generated by this or similar proposals. Townhouses typically generate 6 to 7
trips a day. With 23 units this would amount to 140 -160 trips per day being
generated from this site. If the Borgstrom piece was added to the
development it is anticipated that 7 more units could be developed. This
would increase the average daily trips to and from the site to 180 - 210 trips
. per day. 1991 traffic counts indicate ~t County Road C currently has
average daily traffic of 8800 and Dale Street south of County Road C has a
average daily traffic of 5950. Both Dale Street and County Road C have the
capacity to handle the added traffic that would be generated by this proposed
project.
3. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS:
The Engineering Staff bas reviewed the submittal and bas made the following
recommendations:
1. Need a concrete sidewalk along County Road C. .
2. Both the new proposed Storm Sewer and Watermain that exit the
property to the south cross city park property. There is an existing
storm sewer and watermain located in County Road C which should be
sued and not cross city property.
3. The proposed 12" PVC storm sewer line between manholes 1 and 12
as shown on sheet 2 of the plans is at 11.71 % grade. The water in that
section of pipe will be running at 18 feet per second. The invert of the
pipe will not last long at that grade. The water should not run greater
than 10 feet per second. Additional manholes would be needed to slow
the water down.
·4. The plan does not show the location of the existing trees and the
number that would have to be cut down if the park property is used.
5. All existing wells on the property must be removed as per State of
Minnesota standards. All existing sanitary sewer and water services
that are not going to be used must be removed as per City of Receival
standards.
6. Any deferred assessments due to the re-zoning must be paid as per city
policy.
7. Proposed manholes number 13 and 16 must be moved to the south so
the proposed new connections to the existing manholes in County Road
C enter as close to· 90 degrees as possible.
8. No landscaping plans were available to review.
.
9. Rain water will stand in a low area on the west side of the site. This
6
water must be picked up with a catch basin or grade the property so the
water does not stand in one location.
4. t9NCLUSION AND RECOMMENDA TION~
It is staffs belief that the proposed use of this site for townhome development
would be appropriate if the City's Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan is
amended to designate this area for medium density residential. As the
Planning Commission has progressed in their work on the Comprehensive
Land :Use Guide Plan update goals and policies relative to housing have been
formulated. In addition criteria has been developed to be applied to proposals
for multiple family dwelling construction within the City. These goals,
policies and critera are attached to· this planning report. This proposed
townhome development meets most of those criteria, and it is for these
reasons the staff believes this is an appropriate location for townhouse
development within the City ofRoseville. There are specific design
çonsiderations for this project that must still be resolved. Specifically they
relate to the interface with the property to the east and whether or not that
property will become a part oftbis project or will need to have additional
sçreening to protect it. The issue of on-site surface water storage verses a V
regional storm water tàcility must still be resotvéd and the question of private ~
verses public streets should be addressed. Given resolution to these issues it ~ ~4
is staffs recommendation that the application ofParlaidge Development 'IJY ~
Corporation for a PUD Concept Development Plan ApprOval. rezoning from 'fY
R-l to Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat at 674,656 and 646
W. County Road C should be approved.
water must be picked up with a catch basin or grade the property so the
water does not stand in one location.
4. ÇONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
It is staffs belief that the proposed use of this site for townhome development
would be appropriate if the City's Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan is
amended to designate this area for medium density residential. As the
Planning Commission has progressed in their work on the Comprehensive
Land :Use Guide Plan update goals and policies relative to housing have been
fonnu1ated. ~ ~J . ï" r 1 ~ _ _... I I - Is
fu_ _J~L ~ : 1. T _. . .~ .Lj. These goals,
policies and critera are attached to this planning report. This proposed
townhome development meets most of those criteria. and it is for these
reasons the staff believes this is an appropriate location for toWDhouse ~.
development within the City ofRoseville. If 1~ - ~ J .111 ~' .
.. Lt' J t' . 1" Iii.'IIIi ~-'- II : '.
f- . -~ ...." I - L Î H ._ ; -. . - ~ ~ L
~~ : "~Y:~~~~jt~jïI..;~~ :~"f. J. . .~~......J.J _;...~1
r .' II' : :~~j~.- JlJAI .1
_n "0 L r" _.tw." The issue of on-site surface w.terstotage verses a- V
regional storm water facility must still be reslllWd and e \ ".)
L ~ 1 r _L L I r . . _~. Given resolution to these issues it ~~/.;
is staffs recommendation that the application ofparkridge Development '.,p';or-
Corporation for a PUD Concept Development Plan Approval, rezoning from ~
R-l to Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat at 674,656 and 646
W. County Road C should be approved.
impediment to traffic visibility. The City's "visibility triangle" says that no
over story planting should occur in a triangular area 30ft. back ftom the
property comer along both rights-of-way. "11Ia.J.:ef.W.'."lltes
...,..ñ....witIa..pn,lttyto....·,,,...'......,tIle
i-III ....., 1..,'......1.....J.1fttfett..ø-......~
wiI.... .~_. .. tJae, plan. De Berptom FelÌåeDce is quite
"'to¡.... ·prøpestytiae ·oftis proposed project1
As indicated earlier the 23 proposed units are all ....ltOJyuaits. The 2
units in the Southeasterly comer of the project will be walk-out units in order
to accommodate grade changes in this location. ""H04sq.~. ineaoh
unit, 1 M4sq. ft. is livins .., aacl46Osq. ft: is prase. A copy of the
building elevation and the floor plan is included with the plan review
package. As currently presented the exterior materials are proposed to be
preinislød metal siding. The developer has indicated that if budgets pennit
some brick may be added to the front elevation
The grading and utility plan has been submitted with this application.
Engineering staff has review these plans and have raised some concerns in a
following section of this report. Of pIftiouIIr impottanceis ..e fact that this
desiønis proposing no on-site storage of surface water but rather woøld
. collect surface water in a stmm sewer system that woold move the water to a
reaioøal storm water facility east of Dale Street. I. btL J ..: i 1 uÎ
to M_ fL_Tlj l· n II J_. _L~_~" """ LL _ lU_l_JJ L :UUly
11 r l_.J ~~[lß8L&Cl1 L&... J..._....___. I ¡ . e. It"" also be Doted
that the plan to move stonn water relies on a storm sewer pipe moving across
City park land.
.
..
During the public hearings on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive
Land Use Guide Plan questions were raised about ........ that WOtiId he
generated by this or similar propoJals. T I 1.... .. '...! I . I' l A I.'
L '..- Ju~ '. With 23 units this would amount to 140 - 160 trips per day being
generated ftom this site. If the Borgstrom piece was added to the
development it is anticipated that 7 more units could be developed. This
would increase the average daily trips to and from the site to 180 - 210 trips
. per day. 1991 traffic counts indicate ~t County Road C currently bas
average daily traffic of 8800 and Dale Street south of County Road C has a
average daily traffic of 5950. Bv~ B~v tJ.. ___ _J ß..,waA"J R..._J G kl I"'L T1
_ r- dlJ 1... UwaAu&Ç dt!'ImfmIIftn! wen wJli1u t,'"' ~&Í~I"~'IJPU'- If·
Honorable Vern Johnson
Mayor, City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
~
May 4, 1994
Dear Mr. Johnson,
We are writing in opposition to the proposed rezoning of Mr. AI Kehr's property
at 674, 656 and 646 West County Road C from single family residential to planned
unit development. As you are aware, the Roseville Planning Commission at its
meeting on April 13 voted not to change the Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan
designation for this property and the surrounding properties from low density
residential to medium density residential. The Planning Commission made its decision
after hearing unanimous opposition to the proposed land use change from the
property owners in the affected area. Members of the Planning Commission based
their decision partly on concerns that this land use change would make "islands" out
of single family dwellings adjacent to the proposed development and that the values of
these properties would be adversely affected. We are asking that the City Council
adopt the recommendation of the Roseville Planning Commission to retain the low
density residential land use designation and zoning for these properties.
We are concerned that the proposed development will adversely affect the
character of what is now a quiet, single-family residential neighborhood. We are
concerned about increases in traffic through the area, particularly if Avon Street is
opened to Dale Street as part of the ongoing redevelopment of the area. We have
recently completed a substantial remodeling of our home. Our decision to invest in
our present home rather than to buy elsewhere was based in large part on our
appreciation for the quiet character of the neighborhood. We are concerned about the
effect of the proposed development on the value of single family homes in the area.
As property owners in the neighborhood affected by this zoning change, we
request to be notified in advance of any further City Council discussion or action on
this matter.
q¡G~
Æ.-Ca.A\.0 ..¡7 ~
Jack and Diane Paulson
2561 Fisk Street
'lfs - b~)
April 27, 1994
AI Kehr
988 W. County RoadD
Roseville, MN 55126
Dear Mr. Kehr:
The Roseville City Council, at its April 25, 1994 meeting, continued Parkridge
Development Corporation's request for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept
Development Plan approval, rezoning from R-l Single Family to PUD at 674,656, and
646 W. County Road C to the May 23, 1994 City Council meeting.
If you should have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at 490-2236.
Michael F
City Planner
City of Roseville
:cf
2660 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE. ROSEVILLE. MINNESOTA. 55113-1899
612-490-2200 .TDD 612-490-2205
City of Roseville
Community Development Department
~~
~ MEMO
April 26, 1994
TO:
Planning Commissioo
FROM:
Demùs Welsch, Community Development Director
COUNCIL DIRECTION ON KEHR-PARKRIDGE
RE:
At the April 25th Council Meeting the City Council tabled any decision on the comprehensive plan
land use issue in and around the Kehr prQject until they received a more clear and specific
recommendation fiom the Commission on May 9th. The Council will then deal with the COMPo
PLAN land use designation as well as the Kehr PUD (read PUD as ZONING) on May 23rd.
The confusion arose when the Council had two COMP PlAN recommendations in hand; one
recommended awrovaI of a change to medium density housing for the Kehr site alone, and to hold
additional hearings on the sunuunding prqJerty; the second recommendation stated no change should
be made fiom Kehr to Dale Street. In addition to being a contradiction of the fust recommendation,
it did not clearly recommend what to do with the land west of Kehr (the Legion area).
The neighbors to the west and north were at the meeting on April 25th. The Council did not
recognize them for comment, but rather simply continued the hearing until more information was
available fiom the Planning Commission. Some Council Members, Staff, and Commission Member
Katie Harms, spoke with the neighbors in the hall outside the Council Chambers dming a break.
Obviously, they were confused! They asked when the Commission will meet on the Comprehensive
Plan (April 27) and the next Commission regular meeting (May 9). They will attend both.
On April 27th the Commission will take up the issue of land use map designation changes in each
of the 15 planning dimiœ. S1aff recommendatiom are in the report. It will be to your advantage
to have read these sectiom in the agenda packet. The Kehr area is inchllied in these land use
cha11fes.
On May 9th the Commission has one public hearing scheduled regarding Kehr. This is the long
scheduled and continued PUD (rezoning request). It malœs sense to clarify the COMP PLAN issue
(as ~ by the City Council) prior to ~Jing with this PUD. Therefore, I will take the hberty
of rearnmging the schedule so that the Commission may dispense with the COMP PLAN issues first,
then, based on the COMP PLAN determination, q81 the hearing f<r the KERR PUD (rezoning).
If the Commissioo recommends approval of the KERR COMPo PlAN designation of medium
density residential housing (MR), then a recommendation of awrovaI for the KERR PUD (rezoning),
would be consistent. Presumably, this KERR PUD (rezoning) would have many site improvement
conditiom to make it compatible with the existing, a<ljoining prqJerties.
Alternately, if the Commission decided to recommend denial of the COMPo PLAN change to
medium density (MR), then it would not be consistent to awrove the PUD (rezoning) and a
recommendation of denial of the PUD is appmpriate.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 4-25-94
ITEM NO.: D-2
~nt Approval: Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section:
~ ~ Hearing
Item Description: . Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment ITom Low Density
Residential and Institutional to Medium Density Residential at 720, 716,
700, 690, 686, 634, 636, and 626 W. County Road C.
Backe:round:
1. At the March 9, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended
approval of Mr. AI Kehr's request to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation
on his property located at 674,656, and 646 W County Road C from Low Density
Residential (LD) to Medium Density Residential (MD). The Commission requested that
the entire area between Kehr and Dale Street and the American Legion Property (to the
west of the Kehr Property) also be evaluated for a potential land use change. The
Commission directed staff to establish a public hearing for the April 13 meeting to
consider this matter.
2. At the March 28, 1994 City Council meeting, the Council took no action on the Kehr
property recommendation. The Council chose to delay taking any action on the Kehr
property until after the Planning Commission had held a hearing (4/13/94) and had made a
recommendation on the broader area. The hearing notice on these potential
Comprehensive Plan amendments was widely distributed at the request of the Planning
Commission and City Council. From the testimony and discussion at the meetings, it is
clear that residents are confused about the differences between Comprehensive Plan
amendments, rezonings, the timing of future roadway extensions and actual development
proposals.
3. At the April 13, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, the residents expressed their
opposition to the potential changes in the comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission
recommended denial of any changes in the Comprehensive Plan land use designation
including the Kehr property. The Commission cited the lack of support from adjoining
neighbors to the west, the American Legion Property, and the owners of the Booth and
Britz properties to the east of the Kehr property.
1
Development Analvsis
1. Since the consultant and staff originally reviewed Mr. Kehr's proposal, we have
recommended the Kehr development only if the area between the Kehr property and Dale
Street was also designated as MR Medium Density Residential. Without this action, the
land use and zoning on the Kehr property would result in an island ofMR with single
family or duplex uses on either side. Two conditions of approval should be included.
First, future street extensions could be made both to Dale Street and to the west. These
are long term considerations and not needed until these adjacent areas redevelop. Second,
a regional storm water facility to handle all development in this area should be seriously
studied. This would be more efficient and aesthetically pleasing ITom a land use
perspective.
2. As discussed during the Comprehensive Plan workshops, the most difficult aspect of the
redevelopment of areas like this one is determining when enough change has occurred.
Under the correct set of circumstances and with the controls that the City will maintain in
this case, the City can change the land use designation between the Kehr property and
Dale Street. There is no need to change further to the west. The area to the west should
await redevelopment of the American Legion property. The Legion has stated that they
are not interested in pursuing a change at this time.
3. Both Dale Street and County Road C have the capacity to handle the added traffic.
Exhibit 1
1. Exhibit 1 illustrates the existing conditions in the area with the addition of the current 23
housing units proposed by Kehr (6 units/acre). It has been designed to eventually
incorporate the Borgstrom Property into the development. If this does not occur, the
PUD could require additional buffering, screening or even a change in the layout. As
currently planned and zoned, Kehr's land could be used for single family homes at
approximately 3.3 units/acre. It would add 10-12 homes with 100-120 total trips per day
and 30 to 35 new residents; and it would add $1.5 million in new housing value.
2. Kehr's proposed 23 unit development will add approximately 35 new residents, generate
between 140 and 160 total traffic movements (in or out); and add an estimated $3.4
million in new housing development.
3. If the Kehr project is approved, the land use designation to the east ofKehr should
eventually be changed to MR Medium Density Residential. The future street extensions to
Dale Street and to the west should be included in the Comprehensive Plan, making it clear
in the text of the plan that these streets will be built only when these areas develop. All of
these land owners can continue to maintain the current use of their properties as long as
they want. They can sell the property or even rebuild. The future streets would only be
necessary if and when the owner decides to develop the land.
2
Exhibit 2
1. Exhibit 2 adds the Borgstrom Property (estimated at 7 housing units) to the Kehr PUD.
In Mr. Borgstrom's letter he states that he has been in negotiations with Mr. Kehr to sell
his property and he requested the change in land use for his property as well.
2. The Borgstrom Property can be very efficiently added to the proposed street design in the
Kehr proposal and no street needs be extended to Dale St. at this point.
3. The Kehr-Borgstrom 30 unit development will add approximately 45 new residents,
generate between 180 and 210 total traffic movements (in and out); and add an estimated
$4.5 million in new housing development.
Exhibit 3
1. Exhibit 3 adds the Salverda Property. John Shardlow has met with Leonard Salverda,
who has indicated his support for the change. He has submitted a letter indicating his
support (actually the land is in his mother's name).
2. When the Salverda parcel is developed, the street connection to Dale Street must be
constructed. Mr. Salverda understands the need for this connection, but, he is
understandably concerned about the effect that the location of this roadway could have on
the development potential of the northern half of the Salverda land. The specific
alignment of this road would be determined at the time his land was sold and a
development proposal is reviewed.
3. The Kehr-Borgstrom-Salverda 34 unit development will add approximately 51 new
residents, generate between 210 and 235 total traffic movements (in and out); and add an
estimated $5.1 million in new housing development.
Exhibit 4
1. Exhibit 4 illustrates a potential configuration of buildings, assuming the incorporation of
all of the properties to the east ofKehr. It is only an illustration for discussion purposes.
This change is unlikely to occur any time soon because the two properties (Britz and
Booth) appear to be in good condition. Mr. Britz spoke in opposition to the change at the
Council hearing. (Mr. Booth stated he was concerned about being left as an "island" and
increased taxes).
2. As Figure 4 shows, the combination of the northern half of the Salverda property, with the
Britz and Booth parcels would allow approximately 6 units to be built. No driveway
would have direct access onto County Road C. This would only occur if all three of the
owners agreed to sell. They would control the situation completely. In the meantime, the
MR designation would be an asset to them adding flexibility for the future.
3
3. The Kehr-Borgstrom-Salverda-Britz and Booth 39 unit devel.opment will add
approximately 58 new residents, generate between 240 and 270 total traffic movements (in
and out) and add an estimated $5.8 million in new housing development.
Redevelopment of Properties to the West
1 . The key to the future of the area to the west of the Kehr Property is the American Legion
parcel. They have officially stated that they have no current plans to change the use of this
site. The two single family lots that front on County Road C would be expensive and have
limited potential for redevelopment without the broader context of the American Legion
Property. Both of the single family lot owners are opposed to any change.
2. The transition between MR and LR can be effectively made at the west property line of
the Kehr PUD. (This transition is made somewhat more difficult since the garage and
retaining wall on the property to the west of Kehr actually encroach onto the Kehr
Property). This can be reviewed in greater detail with the review of the PUD.
Summarv and Recommendation
1. Through the VISTA 2000 process and the work that has been done to date on the
Comprehensive Plan, the City ofRoseville has strongly supported the need to provide the
type of housing that is being proposed by Mr. Kehr. The property under consideration
meets the objective criteria that have been discussed by the Planning Commission for
locating this type of medium density residential use in the City. It is seldom easy to
facilitate this type of change in a fully developed City. Mr. Kehr has been at this project
for some 10 years now.
2. Through the strategic use of the Comprehensive Plan and the PUD, the City can
successfully facilitate this transition and the interests of the affected property owners can
be protected. There are four property owners between Kehr and Dale Street. Two of the
four have indicated their basic support for this change. The Britz duplex is on a lot that is
approximately 10,800 sq. ft. That is an effective density of approximately 8 units per acre,
2 units per acre higher density than proposed by Mr. Kehr, and consistent with the MR
density range.
When looked at in its entirety, a regional storm water ponding facility makes sense,
perhaps in the area along and east of Dale Street where leaves are currently composted.
3. Importantly, all of these property owners control whether or not they sell their property.
In the review of the PUD, the staff attempt to respond directly to their plans and address
compatibility issues in the design process.
4. The properties to the west should not be considered for a land use change unless it is the
context of the redevelopment of the American Legion Property. The Legion
4
representatives have publicly stated that they have no current interest in changing their use
of the property (and they understand that the City is in the process of updating its
Comprehensive Plan). Therefore, we do not recommend changing the land use
designations for any of the parcels to the west ofKehr at this time.
5. The staff recommends approval of the change in land use designation for the following
properties from LR to MR.: Kehr, Borgstrom, Britz, Booth and Salverda. The staff also
recommends illustrating the future street extensions from Kehr to Dale Street and
appropriate text in the Comprehensive Plan to require the street extensions if and when
these parcels redevelop.
Alternative Actions
1. Approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment from LR to MR. for Kehr and deny the
request on Borgstrom, Britz, Booth, and Salverda.
2. Approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment from LR to MR. for Kehr and Borgstrom,
Britz, Booth, and Salverda.
3. Because of the 2 contradicting recommendations from the Planning Commission, return
the project to the Planning Commission. Request one formal recommendation on the
Comprehensive Plan and the PUD (which is scheduled for a hearing on May 11, 1994).
4. Table action on the entire area until the Comprehensive Plan has been adopted and
regional storm water issues have been resolved by the Planning Commission and the
Council (estimated late June or early July).
Staff Report by:
Dennis Welsch
John Shardlow - Consultant
Attachments:
Chart of Hearings
Property Map
Proposed vs. existing uses and zoning
Shardlow 4 exhibits
5
......,
c
Q)
E
c.
.2Q)
~:;
Q)U I
(:) ~ i¡
~~·I
:g ~ ~·i
~ è:' ~ ~
ra "t: 0
c.. ra
l-î
10-
oJ::
~
«
~i
oJ
~
~oi
~::t
~
~I
~-
I) 2'
o ï
::t
~~
~
~
~I
~-
I) 2'
o ï
::t
~~
~
~
I
o
~
~
rn
~
z
~
:I:
[:
o
1;;
...
Q)
"'C
.~ ~
0Ù)
0C\l
i~
~.s
1::[:
° cu
On.
~ci.
()E
UO
.u
d';õ
00
~
ð !
~
E
8-
~
~
~
ï::
:::J
E
E
8
CD
.~
~
or. .,
I
~J~ vh ~ I."....~
(:~)k~ (If) ~ (7) Jj ClJ)
-.. I
~: ~ :;~e
I
I
,..-.,
8
-
~A"P lie... N
KE~· f<Þ4J?
- ---
."ee
..aac
(3)
-...
2
.SSa~
. ~.ec..
i
I
I
~.
@
~
(Õiõ)
~
~
~
:J .
-!"
(išõ)
~
~.~~
'.43ac .
(;.G~ o.c..
'/)
(u)
\II
11\ ..
~ IIIÍ
G\
'"
z
-
o
o
~
-'
~
OF ROSEVILLE
(z. 7)
~
80
~
----
--
~-~ ----~
,. )
-0-
ß__q: QwHu..~~ t1ð.~
~.:::: ~/t'5/''''
f---
\----
~
..
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I I
II
III~
HE
BE
:D
./.--
1.11
LR 1.11- UI~
LR 1.11 1.11-1.11
1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 ~-
1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11
1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 -LR"
LR LR 1.11_
LR 1.11 LIILR LII 1.11 -1.11
1.11 LII LII ~-..\:.R ~
1.11 1.11. 1.11 1.11 ~" 1.11 R\UIILRILR 1.11\ 1.11" ~
1.111.11 1.11 LR 1.11 V I tLR
1.11 1.11 1.11 ~ 1.11 1.11 >-' 1.11 1.11 -=--
1.11;:;..-'-- 1.11 LR
~R 1.11 1.11 1.11 LII 1.11 1.11 1.111.11", -
LII ... !a" .. III /"...- LII ,....-
LR LII
1.11 LRLII LR LR LR 1.11 LR LII LII LII LR 1.11 LR -
LII 1.11 J 1.11
1.11 LII LII 1.11 1.11 1.11 LIIILR 1.11 1.11 Lit LII ~ 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 LII LR 1.11 1.11 1.11
COUIII'Y ... C
...-
1.11 ~
LR LII LR
....:;..;.. ~ LII - _LII LII I
.!:!... ~ 1.11 1.11 r KJ ~11 R
1.11 1.11
...!:!!.. UIILIIIUI 1.11 LII 1.11 1.1111.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 I
1.11
-
':;--111.1111.1111.111 1.11 LII 1.11 1.11 1.11
~~ ~ 1.11 1.1111.11 Lit I
1.11 \1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11
1.11 ~~ 1.11 1.11 LRILR LR I
.. 1.11 LII 1.11 LR LR .. P
LII CENTRA.. PARK
1.11 1.11 LR LII LR 1.11
LII
1.11 1.11 IN
1.11 LR 1.11 1.11 1.11 /1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11
.. p p
p
-
\
CENTRAL PARK
..
I
I I
l I I
hrnf~
Ñ
PLANNING FILE 2471
Existing
Land Use
ra
1Oé'x»
800
L
tmH±EEE EE
mIillam rnDD..mnD ~ ~ am ~ §
~ IIIIID ~ ~ mmmm uu: ~ ~
:,
..
..
..
..
p
p
p
.. p
HARRIET ALEXANDER
NATURE CENTER
-
~
~
~~
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
I II ~
I I r
I r
HE
HE
Jj
LII ../ r- ,..-
LII LII;--' LII ~
LII LII LII-LII
LII La La La ...!:!!.. "'fã
La LaLlI LIlLa La_
La LII La La ï:ã ~
LII La LaLa LI La -La
La LI LI ~~ ....;;.-.
La LI LII LII ~" La _\LII LIlLa La\ LI *
LaLlI La LII LII V t LII
La LII LI La LI:Yi LII La -=-
La LI LII
~La LII La 1.1 LII LI LlLII~ -
LaLlI LII iii /L 1.1 .--
:A LII LII LI LII LII LI LII LII LII LII LI LII LIIILII -
~LaII.ILI La LII LIlLa LII LlTLI LII LI LI La ~ La La La LII LilLI La La La La
CIUIm' ... C
L
ffiHHHE tt
mnnD1D mDD..ITDID ~ ~ (IJI] ~ §
~ unm ~ ~!DIIDnID m: #;<$
:,
..".-
~ LII
~ La LI
~ f--"- 1.1 - _La Lie I
~ ,...!:!!... La LII I KJ:ER
~ La
~ LlTLII LaLaLII LII LII LII La LII LII LI i
~
-¡¡-I LIIILI LlI La La LII LII LII
,~ ~ La LalLa LI I
LI ,La LII La LII LI LI
La \~ LI LII LIIILa I.. I
.. La La LII LII LI .. ..
La CENTRA.j PARK
LI La LI LI LI LII
LILa LII LI LI LalLi La LI La IN
LI LI
.. .. ..
..
.-
\
CENTRAL PARK
..
PLANNING FILE 2471
I I
rnø~H
\~
UseÑ
Proposed
Land
~
1ØÍ')o
aoo
.. ..
lit
lit
..
lit
..
..
..
HARRIET ALEXANDER
NATURE CENTER
l-
f---
r--
~
RI
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I
II I I
I ,,~
HE
HE
Jj
-/ r- r-
I-- I...-
RI -
RI II RI - >-¡¡¡-
I. II '--
II II II II I. -II
RI RI I. '--
II II II II RI I. -RI
II RI I. '....;C~ ¡........;...
II I. RI RI II ~RI RI RI RI III II II \ Ri'1-
RI RI II RI t±
RI II~ R. RI II II
~RI II RI fll RI II RI RI RI RI RI
II ~- RI ~
RI II .. ~
II IIRI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI II RI -
I. RI RIll RI RIll II IIfll II II RI II II II II RI RI RlIII RI II II II
COUIIIY _ C
L
EHEffi!E tt
D1IID£I1I] lIIIID",rnnn ~ ~rrm ~§
~ nmn ~ ~ rmmlIlD m-:: ~~
:,
II
RI
RI
RI
...- RI RI
'-¡¡¡- f-¡i- II RI RI 001
7~RI__RI RI ~ I
~ ~ II II r KJ:EIR
RI ~I T. RI RI
r-- 11111 II II II} iRl RI RI RI II I
~
1- I II RI RlI II RI RI II II
\ '" í':. : :.:. I:. :. I ~
" .. \~: :: I: : I CEN~ RÅ, P ÅRK
RI
RI RI ..
II II RI RI Rlfll II .. RI
RI .. RI
CENTRAL PARK
I
I I
l I
trmY~H
\.
m
PLANNING FILE 2471
Existing
Zoning
¿
~
800
R3II
RI
RI
RI
RI
..
RI
HARRIET ALEXANDER
NATURE CENTER
.'\1
r,--
.. - ~ -
.... -
RI RI RI"--
RI I' ..~
.. RI......-RI
.. RI .......;..
.. ..........-RI
RI .. I' ~~ .....;..
..II" .... ~RI RI" RlIRlIRI ..\ I' ~
RI.... .. ~ II" RI" RI" .. I tt
~.. .. ....II.. IIIIII~_ II _
II .. -.. - -'
~ ~ II" RlI..... RI II ..... RI II...... -..
~ ~\III" RI II II.. .. IIIRI.. RI II .. t...... II .. II .. II RI ..
CIUIIrr .. C
-
P---
\--
II
I
I
I
1
I I I I I
" r T
III~
HE
BE
.,..-
\
~..!!.... RI
~~II__RlII
~ ~
II II II RI
~ I IITRI RIll RI
~
1- I RI/RI RI RI ~~ RI RI
~: ~II±il: : I
.. ....rr: ±I. ~~ I: : I
\\11.. .... RI ..
.. -- II ..
.. /11 RI "/RlIRI RlI II II
RI RI
.. RI
CENTRA~ PARK
1\
I':
II
II
II
r
.. .. .. RI RI II ..
PU~
II
CENTRAL PARK
I
I I I
m
PLANNING FILE 2471
Proposed
Zoning
b
.
800
\1311
RI
I
I
II
II
RI
..
II
HAH!UET ALEXANDER
NATURE CENTER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 4-25-94
ITEM NO.: D-l
DepartJnent Approval: Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section:
mF/~ ~
Consultant Review: John Shardlow Hearing
Item Description: Parkridge Development Corp. request for PUD concept
development plan approval, rezoning from R-l to Planned Unit
Development (PUD) at 674,656, and 646 W. County Road C.
Baclæround:
I. In December, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for a
comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning to Planned Unit Development
(PUD) on this same property. The development at that time consisted of29
townhouse units. It was reviewed by the Planning Commission at two
meetings and a series of neighborhood meetings were also held. At that time,
the City was gearing up to conduct the VISTA 2000 community visioning
process as the first step in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan.
The City did not have a current policy framework to assist in evaluating this
request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning. Similar
applications for rezoning had been denied elsewhere in the community.
Consequently, we recommended and Mr. Kehr agreed to withdraw his
application until the VISTA 2000 process was conducted and enough work
had been completed on the Comprehensive Plan to provide the City with
some guide in reviewing his request. Mr. Kehr has been waiting until now to
reactivate the process.
2. Mr. Kehr'sapplication for rezoning to Planned Unit Development now
includes three lots, totalling 3.67 acres in size. The development plan
proposes 23 townhouse units for this site. Public hearings on this application
for rezoning were scheduled for April 13, 1994 by the Planning Commission
and April 25, 1994 by the City Council. During the review of this project, it
was detennined that the best course of action was to consider an amendment
to the Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan prior to considering the request
for rezoning from single family to planned unit development. Given this
schedule, it was necessary to continue the Planning Commission public
hearing to May 11, 1994. The City Council's public hearing should be
continued to their May 23, 1994 meeting .
Staff Recommendation
1. It is recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing on
Parkridge Development Corp. request for rezoning from R-l Single Family to
Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 674 W. County Road C to the Council
meeting of May 23, 1994.
Council Action Reauested
I. Motion to continue consideration ofParkridge Development Corp. request for
PUD concept development plan approval, rezoning from R-l Single Family to
Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 674,656, and 646 W. County Road C
to the City Council meeting of May 23, 1994.
Staff Report by: Michael Falk
city of Roseville
Community Devel~ Dqmtment
MEMO
April 25, 1994
TO:
Steve Sarlrozy, City Manager
RE:
Dennis P. Welsch, CoIDUl1mity Development Director
ZEECE PROPERTY - CONSOLIDATION WITH CITY PROPERTY
FROM:
The 'k£œ property located at AJbermarle and County Road B is a subdivisioo that has not
devel~ because it has some soil prd>lems and until the Ia.\1 few years had no utilities 00 the site.
Within the p&t 2 weeks the Community Development Staff has begun worlång with Dave Webber,
of Pineview Overlook, Inc., a potential buyer of the 'k£œ site and the adjoining city parcel.
(Webber's company does small townhoose prQjects 00 infill sites. He currently has 2 projects under
construction in Plymouth and Oakdale. He is proposing using the combined site to construct 2 and
3 units townhoose structmes - a total of 32 to 38 new housing units.
Mr. Webber has asked that the city establish a value 00 the land and the soil correction work that
I11m1 be done in this prQject. Our staff has suggested that Webber provide the city with a proforma,
illustrating what the extraordinary costs of conmuction will be such as soil correctioo (currently
e&imated at $l30,<ro to $l80,<ro), sewer, water, and road co.\1s to the site. We will then attempt
to define the "financial gap" .
The City has spent $121,305 in acquiring the property (including a 'k£œ lot to gain access to the
city parcel). This rqm¡ents $ 1.22/s.f. Other nndeveq,ed residential property in the city has sold
or been 00 the market for $.82/s.f. to $.92/s.f.
Once we can agree upon a purchase price for the city land, Mr. Webber will submit a
pIqXJSed purchase agreement, subject to approval of the necessary comprehensive plan and zoning
(PUD) changes.
QUESTION: When would you like to discuss the concept of this land sale with the City Council?
... May 16th work session?
xc: Rick Jopke
Attachment: 'hece Plat and Parcel Map
Zoning and Compo Plan Map
.I..
~A"P "e...
.~
"75 I
. .
~~v~'
J .4aac. l1~
(s) ~ (.) .
.a1_
-
~;~:
~
'"'
;) ~
,!.,
(jšõ)
~
s.~ac
(;.,,~ o.c..
\II
\II "
.. .;
f)
'"
f'j
(u)
z
-
C
o
~
..J
~
I
I
(u)
f"~~ .
LAGE OF ROS£VILLE
. (1.7)
~
eo
QJ
----
--
-0-
~~~rr- QwHE£.~~ t1().~
~r-== ~/t'5/'f+
=
~=
L~~
~U
L1=
=~
~Z
=
~
- -- .... [[ I J-
- f--
f-- L-- ~
:L ø= '---
i.-
.L ~
1. sa i.--
..!... u ~
~ I -
..L I ~ ",.. -
..L
t ~
< I--
..... --- ø.. i--
5 ~
--- ~
5 I !II !II !I !I !I SI ...J
5 S!lS!I!!!! ,
- -- < .. I--
..!. 5 ".'. ~ I--
..a.. !I ;-;;";""S ~. E-4 I--
..!.. 5 j¡¡j ÌI'I ~ Z
i.-
..L 5 5 ~ ~ 55555' -;- rz1 --
.1- =-- !I t.) -
~ 5 5 55155'. 5" .. i--
. ...", ~ '---
~ . ¡"... ""'.....'..!. '---
""""-
~ S1!11!!11':' ~ ~ ~
51'1'1' 5 '1"" 5 ~ '- i--
-
""""- ~
.. -
..
~ ./'
-
..
-- - .....
- ~ -
io-o
-
'-
io-o
~ -
5
~
Q) §
rn
~
'0
d
~
~
" bD
~
d
;
. ....
. ..¡..)
~ rn
z
z . ....
~ :><
ø.. ~
E§§§
I
CD
~
3
~
~
i
.a
3
S-
f
o
::::J
~
~
9.~
g-
-à8
.3:
~8
Ø) ::::J
::::Jcr:
6"2
~~
UlO
~~
t£
<D
Ø1
-
õ'
::::J
J:
~
~
;
i
I I
::I:::I:
o 0
- -
a. a.
~g
~3
~"!='
a~
=r::J
CD =r
Ø) CD
..,
-- Ø)
::J ..,
<C --
(J)ð
-- (J)
::J
--
?::J
.., ~
:;:::ØJ
~O
Q) =r
'<
en
~
o
::J
a.
J:
CD
Ø)
..,
--
::J
U)
W
=r
~
c:
-
CD
- .
I I
~§:
CD a.
-0
o 0
i 3
"'-0
~ ."
~ õ)
::J =-
g.Ø)
::J
ã1 a.
~~
'<0
~
-- ..,
¢CD
..J N
~ ~.
0<5
"'2.cn
Ø) Ø)
::J 3
(J) CD
::J
to·
=r
r+
o
..,
cC-
--
::J
Ø)
-
J:
CD
Ø)
..,
=;- ~
<C
W ~
=r :I:'"
~CDI
1»-0
§;. :::!. I»
CD ::J ...
--(Q ~
::J en c:
~ (nee
Ø) g. CD
o ~~
=rr:<
- CD- œ..
-It 0
(0 -c
(0 3
~ (1)
::J
r+
...... . .
~ ~
j GI ~
~j .~
&s JQ
i & E
If·~ ð
~~ ~
~ "2
- e
< m
ã:
~
Q)
"S
i
.r:.
~
"E
1:
~
~
w
i~
<»M
.r:. ~
~=t:.r:.
.c i ~~
œ "'-"" ""-'" _
~ CD ~ .¡::
'0 ~ii ~
1i)t'Ø~tn
Q,).L ~c
~ U ._ .2
c:-g1U
)1tU-"'2
(; . ã:. g 42
'i a.'- E
CDE~E
8~o
æ ~ 0·· &J
Q) .t:. ~
(ij~gtn
~ ~
& ~ ~ "-
~~~~
ã;EE::=
~ 0 0 ~
8 fd fd ;;t
...Ja:a:Õ
I I I I
" .
¡
-
"E::
a.
S
-
.~
8
'0
8
'Õ
.r:.
U
(þ
>
:æ
c:
....
~
«
c:
o
1ti
~
Q)
tiŠ~
CD ~
~ ~
o (5
.....'Fo
~"'2-;:-ã1
Om~~
.c.c~8-
~~Ei
.....i-B(ß
~ ~. "ë
c: c: m
a:s m -. -
--en.
n.n.mc..
ci. ci. ã: E
ðð~~
(I)(I).Ëc
~ ~ ;
2s.2s.-S-
~~cß~
I . . .
ow-C'\IM-.::t
i
I
~
J:
!
.
E
e-
~
f
E
B
¡
Affiàauit øf J1ublicutiøn
htt of Æinntliota}
lili .
(gouuttl of iRamlittl
N Theodore Lillie
, being duly sworn, on oath says that
he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper
known as Roseville Review
, and has full knowledge of the facts which
are stated below:
(A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as
a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable
laws, as amended.
(B) The printed
Public Hearing Notice
which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published
once each week, for
1
successive weeks; it was first published on 'l'l1psðay, the
29th
day of
Mar.
19~,
and was thereafter printed and published on every
to and including
, the
day of
, 19_; and printed
below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby
acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the
notice:
· ABeBCrallldIELMN9PQRSfI::lV'.'R<YZ
· ...Bcm:rGIIIJI(LMtlÐPGJRGHN'IJ)(YZ
· abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
BY:
TITLE:
/t.~;(~
tI
Subscribed and sworn to before me on
,19~.
* Alphabet should be in the same size and kind of type as the notice.
+'~---"""'Þ4itIVH""'~'-'~~l
~
;
-...
CAROLE HEURUNG I
NOTARY PUBLlC-MINNESOfA RATE INFORMATION
RAMSEY COUNTY
My Comm. Expires May 7, 1998
-··---'·-·~'-;·---'~~~~~~..-c~"-'''''''''T_I~+
(1) Lowest classified rate paid by
commercial users for comparable space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$14.10 per co!.
inch
(2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.63 per co!. inch
(3) Rate actually charged for the above matter ..................... $
per co!. inch
1/94
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Roseville will
meet at Roseville City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive, on Wednesday, March 9,
1994 at 7:30 p.m., for the purpose of considering the following request:
Parkridge Development Corporation request for PUD concept development plan
approval, rezoning from R-l to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and
comprehensive plan amendment from low density residential to medium density
residential at 674 W. County Road C.
The City Council, of the City of Roseville, will meet on Monday, March 28, 1994
at City Hall at 7:30 p.m., to consider this request.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
East Parcel
That part of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 11,
Township 29, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at a point 33 feet
West and 33 feet South of the Northeast comer of the Northeast 1/4 of the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 23; thence West on a line parallel
to the North line of said Northeast 1/4, 263.88 feet to point of beginning; thence
West on the same line 98.96 feet; thence South 409.83 feet to a point 395.24 feet
West of the East line of said section; thence East 98.81 feet; thence North 410.10
feet to place of beginning. Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Middle Parcel
That part of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11,
Township 29, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at a point 33 feet
West and 33 feet South of the Northeast comer of the Northeast 1/4 of the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 23; thence West on a line parallel
to the North line of said Northeast 1/4, 362.84 feet to point of beginning; thence
West on the same line 98.97 feet; thence South 409.56 feet to a point 494.05 feet
West of the East line of said section; thence East 98.81 feet; thence North 409.83
feet to place of beginning. Ramsey County, Minnesota.
..
West Parcel
The West 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast
1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 23, according to Government Survey
excepting the· southerly 2/3 of the West 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the
Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 23. Ramsey
County, Minnesota.
.~::;~
City Manager .
Please be sure you or your representative attend these meetings.
/'
~
\
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
]
~
~~~
I--
-III
~\==
\\ I I I
y -.:.~ ~I
- ==Fr
-'--
-I...-
~:: [ßlllloÌiÍ [ßIIIIIDDD ~ ~om ~J J;µ
I C!j IIIIUJ ~ ~ [ßIIIIom~ Ø>
nmn~
mm~-
onm W3 IIDIDC
~~
./
-
-
(x; I"'
1;
¡;¡,
'I!
!
I
L
r
'---- -
-----
-
-
I 111 " 1.
trrn§Y~ IE
PLAtNG FLE 2471
ª I ITII III
~
:/
Po.rkrolloe DeveloPM~nt Corporo. tion request for PUD
concep"t"' oIevelopMen"t plo.n o.pprovo.l rezoning froM R--l
to PUD o.nol cOMprehensive plo.n o.MenolMent froM low
oIensity resiolentio.l to MeoliuM oIensity resiolentio.l
o.t 67~ County Roo.oI C
EH
E
ffi
-
-
~
,
1Il
{C>: DeNNIS fA..)Eil-'ÖG-t; /çcJll1Ø1. Ot£V. PIE. (7' ~ ) "\
rJ lAJ~~ ~PU>JJtJ(Ùb 6-m~ (~.2~·94/
. e>UlL.c::rN~ ~- $tJpV ~ vÞ/êIlUÆ.
-
-
-
tõ? t G: t--"\ eo~V tvt -[ 0- ..~ (lo-\;Á -PBO'Sl-r y ~ð'\JS I~~ !::b. S .
.,-
~'?
I. .~ 5l,PIJUú/Í11JU5 - { PPfI'tTPPtfJ ~
su(!)V'{J1b 5 -ri4117fJ/j~ _£?¢ll1fJ~ .Çf=- ~
tyeuPTY M33~ /EÍ-PEYJL~ ~AJCs-
i) ...~.._·_'bJ~ 8cN6/IJGd ._~
C)-pv.P. -O~(~ ~ HP'i<~~D~
. C~rpJG:, 7t==;A. ~. ~' ..t7S)
(!2JCA=>{t~ ~rŒ¥Z'\J'>' /-r,I.F. ÇbL.-IC.'1')
2.. ~)tJ5 Lù~ .ßUILpI JJl,.. ~ txÞJv\PL..t
~CSl.SL-D_.~ _l~-ZIGfSb~:
A) ¡::tV..t,{ ~--r or- - ..p(2:()--J EVl .5 -
G6.~
t::¡¡u ~GiJ.i A ~
l?) Cbf'~cSWþ ..~ 70 ~,Al1J :=:'~
~~ts-?L~Al.- ..¡;rs7,Á ó'>1J ~~75 . ~
? VGC.e3 S _~ ~DIl-~ S .... .~~~l
(occuPf:Jo..Jv'-t'/-rurµ\Jð7Æ;,f?- ~~~ ) t~FA~~~
'3. p~"6(o - 6~YE'-(B\J(vDJoJ& ç>ÞðJ~-r5
Ø12- c\-C't. ..~L.- / f?G. ~cP
f<.eV La.u ~ ...DlSCÐSS lð1t\.J ,*
.fI!"i'i'
J¡. ~ -.-
WI' .^
.~..,
~ ~~~ ~ Ðþ..6I..E. PVIIST CO:üOOfv/Ij.JLUtl1S
M ~ [)(:JtA l-1e= I t;¡4. 75) ,."tJ .
: u..)~D B(~ C())ù~ vtIN \uM5
fl\J fV~f23,v ~ p.../ tv"\~ .
~t5ìl5T11J 0 r;;o )
~t-I\~
:H_µ~~---e~çÆ¡
6-:1- ~ _uJ:'\"-J .
: ,I S E ~B¥-/DÄ L..€. nu_ I ~ 'Ç= t LL-
~vt.::1\ ·(jM\ -r -t-\c.NSl ~&-
- (~- -·--It')G.ð\I\t:=5-1 ~ F tt....L 'J-
~ ·KE~u.XX)p---µ¡¿'t~tõ~HOðD
··· v\AfL -t-i~--VµrT--r~ rlðW1£/
-I f'jFl(...L. ~O\J5Tfðh(::?~----- -- u____
Ct)e;tJ-~-ð)\)_u-f-\1~5 ,Af>(JVf;;. WA~
--,A~c--r(L -~--/--êV-:nJ..~ G-.-F(;J(~
- _.._.._..... .__._ __,_~_______.._____.._._"'..____' .___ "_ ....___u. n_',' .._. ,_ _.__. ___'__'
___ ____.______._.~___ ,.___._..______ ,,___ n___ ou_____..._.··
__ _ _ ___ m__m_______.______________·__ -___________ .------- ~-.-.-..- .- -
~. LúfJÐJ ~~(AJb MJL}JIC;¿¡~/7~~ . 'Cß!7jB;
A 6 /L.. Foý:L :€3eb7 Ð.(~___cJ;?Jf!~~_:.
.....--
_ "t:::,=". __ .__ ___._ _______ _____________ _n__
ðca. 77¡;r;!5. t9 7bww ¡.J~ .. ..n~_____~________ .... '\
- -udn fZo-zu-¡..¡~tU&-C_~¿7~;!~--~)
_0 Mù¿,7/- ~_Cö>v/)OY!'l/IVLt¿IJ1.-S__________u.____ -- -
__t){;LV£>7eR- fJov6l/lJ~_?k!IIL_rL.!--~'t-- ÚJ/_~
_ _.n .. _n ___u_::5:;;IP-'dIil2_~f1~6_)--. n
~ __"._._.---..______ n_. ..__".,.__
-----.-.-------.- ._----.--
*_lV/i'1Þe£:7l!q-jJC/~~~.--~
- I? -~
PDt}\)[ ~h J/ t;;7AJ'.___________________ ---------- ---- -
- . ..,-.. -_.~._----~-_._----_._----._.~-~ --_.-----_..---
II t:Æ7wv/~ úJ/JetJ ú/6 ~tJ(ÆÇ j:J P/2ðJEV7 LIS?' /{/PI¿E[)
I .. - -- --..---.- -..-.--.. u_.. .--- --- - - - --- -
~AJ ::['0 ße µ,tJpp{ 70 -øvrz 4- P~PøP-ft-
pØVJE?JT G)<'£JM¡JLE? £vITA ';0t/, Il6tJF 771/5
/6 -j!Gl,PPr/¿. 6~4~:t2----_h_
.-----
~SUNDE
ENGINEERING, INC.
9001 E. Bloomington Freeway· Bloomington, MN 55420
(612) 881-3344 ~ FAX (612) 881-1913
March 22, 1994
Mr. Jerry Perkins
POPE ASSOCIATES, INC.
1360 Energy Park Drive
Saint Paul, MN 55108
Re: #92-211 PARKRIDGE ESTATES
Roseville, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Perkins,
Please find enclosed mylar sepia plan sheets C 1: Grading and Utility Plan, and C2:
Storm Sewer for the City submittal. The site plan does not allow for a dedicated ponding area
for stormwater management. However, we have designed sufficient storage in the proposed
greenspace areas, storm sewer piping, storm sewer catchbasins,. and pavement areas in order to
reduce the post-development peak discharge rate to 3.23 cfs which is less than the calculated
pre-development peak discharge rate of 4.51 cfs.
In order to control storm water discharge from the site, 8" and 6'¡ restriction pipes will
be necessary between structure 3 and structure 1. The calculated lOO-yr high water level in
the green space at the center of the site is 933.98. The calculated lOO-yr high water level in
the swale at the south side of the site is 931.78. Proposed building floor elevations are set at
936.00. The emergency overflow elevation is 934.2.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
SUNDE ENGINEERING, INC.
~oolt~~O
"--
LUiJJ:.uW\J.
~'¡¡~~
ð¿j~Qd
(f)(¡,'f¡f'/)Jl
v"o'n,~..o
~~:J:~~
:~:;'~I:q~
~b~u!~G
Il.J..I;,:lU
f/"I.",,'I.'X.
~?;;~~~l!
oo:;:~f.¡~
",(..,r".,<')
C"!t-J.-y,rJ
.... .. ~! ., ';
J
I
~~
~
I
b~.~~~WMM~J~
~o
~o'~
O·
~ ~+
...
tt,'fi ~\.
~ Q. ...t'\.
~ :'U'
~'" .~~
ð\X
. 0
(IOSL') ,~" PVc.. -....
.~
A~t31.. o. 58 ~ 1 AI.. WL ~ 2.5
% IMP a 3'\. ~% s~ 0.0141
~wt2].: O.58HDQ..(' ~lÞt: 20
9otWlP· (0"3.8% 5&0.01:5(,
/"" ( IDS a..,.) I~" p"" ,,=- ~Ð\.1.0
,* . \~
I ~ ~,,[Col·o.2(,\flU. W,I.. 10
\. ; ~'MP· 73.'\% Sa 0.01 S
(1ØLr:) \5" I>vc..
"... ('11' Lf) IS" pvC
a" b..,. r
A¡.Jt'1= o. 2€fMu. \V.\A,~. 20
tr"IMP· 38.2}'~ 5 ~o.öI5ß
(25Lf) Co"ð.I-P¡
FlZ.tE
OUTFfH,,~
p
o
p
A
s
(
A
T
s
f
s
o
f
March 22, 1994
Mr. Rick Jopke
Assistant Community Development Director
Roseville City Hall
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Re: Parkridge Estates
Dear Mr. Jopke:
Please accept our application for a residential Planned Unit Development.
Parkridge Estates is a 23-unit townhome development on 3.67 acres of land
south of County Road C and just west of Dale Street.
The site is currently zoned R-1 (single family residential) and we are
requesting that the development be classified as a P.U.D. which will allow
the construction of townhomes.
The townhomes are 2004 sq. ft. each with a two car garage and adequate
parking in the driveway for two additional cars. The townhomes are
designed as single story, slab on grade units, however, due to the existing
topography of the site at least one unit will have a basement.
Twenty-three units on 3.67 acres of land breaks down to 6.3 units per acre.
The streets will be asphalt with curb and gutter and built to City
specifications. They will be 28' wide which will allow adequate room for any
overflow parking.
I have included:
Preliminary Platt
Context Plans
Site Plan
Landscape Plan
Floor Plan and Exterior Elevations
Grading, Drainage, and Utility Plan
~
~..~-..~~.4I(~"r"" ....I~~r:"
~
N
c.
1360 Energy Park Drive
Suite 300
St. Paul, Minnesota
55108·5202
6126429200
FAX: 612 6421101
Mr. Rick Jopke
Parkridge Estates
March 22, 1994
Page 2
It is our understanding that we will be placed on the agenda for the April
Planning Commission and City Council meetings.
If you have any questions or comments with the submission please give me
a call.
POPE ASSOCIATES INC.
J ·
Je~d Perkins. A.I.A.
Attachment
llarab ., 1..4
'lanning Commi..ion Member.:
~ name i. 30hn Borgstrom and ay wife and children live at 644
.e.t countI Road c. We have lived there over twenty year.. I am
writing th . letter be~au.e neither ay _ife nor I will be able to
attud tonight'. aeeting concerning 'arkridge Development. We
care about our neighborhood and have ·concern. about the paruidge
Develop.ent .ite becau.e we live immediately to the ea.t.
.e "lievethat land in Ro.eville i. at a premia and 1t i.
inevitable that this type of develop.ent i. probably the best u.e
of this property. It would be nice 1f the commi..ion approved
this develop.ent that they take the concern. of the neighbor.
into consideration and .ee that 1Ir. Itahr follow. the Planning
c~s.ion'. recommendation..
I .\I9ge.t that if you rezone the property for Mr. Itehr, that all
property along that .tretch of county Road C be op.n for rezoning
in the future for future· develop.ent. '!'hi. would help Hr. Itehr
if be decide. to purcha.e our property. As of thi. 4ate, I have
offered Mr. Itehr my property for .ale. Øe ha. a written offer,
bUt Mcause of the ti.e lap.e and no aove.ent·on bi. part, we are
withdrawing that offer. It i. .till for .ale if. be i. indeed
* .erious about buying 1't.. A price can be negotiated.
OUr bigge.t problem with the project i. the road on the east .ide
. of the property. It runs along our bedroom .ide of the house and
i. very close to the property line. We would like it moved
further away or .0.. sort of divider on the property line .uch as
pin. tree or fence scre.n our bou.e. Anything the Commi.sion can
40 would be appreciated.
our .econd concern i. .ention of an ea.t/w..t .tre.t conn.cting
the project to Dale street. '!'he idea i. ;ood, but it would bave
to ero.. .y property. '!'hi., too, would be open fOT negotiation.
.. would not like to ... the road to Dale street cr~ss our
property without .plittin; our lot and ..11in; the back balf to a
developer before the road 90e. in. 'lbi. i. very important to u.a
!'bank you for your consideration.
.
- \~ -
1\ffibauit of IIubliration
~ate of minnesota}
55.
<!!ountu of iRamseu
N. Theodore Lillie
, being duly sworn, on oath says that
he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper
known as Roseville Review
, and has full knowledge of the facts which
are stated below:
(A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as
a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable
laws, as amended.
(B) The printed
Public Hp-ñr;ng NOtice
which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published
once each week, for 1
22nd day of Feb.
successive weeks; it was first published on Tuesday ,the
19~,
and was thereafter printed and published on every
to and including
, the
day of
, 19_; and printed
below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby
acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the
notice:
· ABÐBE:F81I1dKLMN9PQRGTY"'J:XYZ
· ^ÐOÐ[rellldl~b.MNgPQRSTI.I'I\AlXV:Z
· abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
BY:
7! ~ ;(~
. 1/·
TITLE:
Subscribed and sworn to before me on
th;S) 23rd day ~ Feb. . 19~.
aiM úL¿J /~ UÁ..[/~
Notary ublic '
* Alphabet should be in the same size and kind of type as the notice.
+~'-"'~IC3M~_:;"K:-'
CAROLE Hl.>.,
NOTARY pueL!'~
RArv¡SEY CÜC;-·i
My Comm. Expirf"·:
RATE INFORMATION
(1) Lowest classified rate paid by
commercial users for comparable space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$14.10 per col. inch
(2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.63 per col. inch
(3) Rate actually charged for the above matter ..................... $
per col. inch
1/94
December 1, 1993
AIKehr
988 W. County Road D
Roseville, MN 55126
Dear Mr. Kehr:
The Roseville City Council, at its November 22, 1993 meeting, continued Parkridge
Development Corporation's request for rezoning from R-l to Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment from low density
residential to medium density residential at 674 W. County Road C to the March
28, 1994 City Council meeting.
If you should have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at 490-2236.
Sincerely,
ìt¡¿.J~/~
Michael Falk
City Planner
City of Roseville
:cf
2660 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE · ROSEVILLE · MI:\~ESOTA · 55113-1899
612-490-2200 · FAX 612-490-2270
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
TO WHOM IT MA Y CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Roseville will
meet at Roseville City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive, on Wednesday, November
10, 1993 at 7:30 p.m., for the purpose of considering the following request:
Parkridge Development Corporation request for PUD concept development plan
approval, rezoning from R-l to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and
comprehensive plan amendment from low density residential to medium density
residential at 674 W. County Road C.
The City Council, of the City of Roseville, will meet on Monday, November 22,
1993 at City Hall at 7:30 p.m., to consider this request.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
East Parcel
That part of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 11,
Township 29, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at a point 33 feet
West and 33 feet South of the Northeast comer of the Northeast 1/4 of the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 23; thence West on a line parallel
to the North line of said Northeast 1/4, 263.88 feet to point of beginning; thence
West on the same line 98.96 feet; thence South 409.83 feet to a point 395.24 feet
West of the East line of said section; thence East 98.81 feet; thence North 410.10
feet to place of beginning. Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Middle Parcel
That part of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11,
Township 29, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at a point 33 feet
West and 33 feet South of the Northeast comer of the Northeast 1/4 of the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 23; thence West on a line parallel
to the North line of said Northeast 1/4, 362.84 feet to point of beginning; thence
West on the same line 98.97 feet; thence South 409.56 feet to a point 494.05 feet
West of the East line of said section; thence East 98.81 feet; thence North 409.83
feet to place of beginning. Ramsey County, Minnesota.
November 2, 1993
Dear Property Owner:
A notice of public hearing was recently sent to property owners within 350 feet
of 674 W. County Road C. Parkridge Development Corporation has submitted a
request for PUD concept development plan approval, rezoning from R -1 to
Planned Unit Development (PUD) and comprehensive plan amendment from
low density residential to medium density residential at 674 W. County Road C.
At the applicant~ request, this item is being continued to the regular Planning
Commission meeting of March 9, 1994 and the regular City Council meeting of
March 28, 1994.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel ftee to contact me at
490-2236.
~~.
Michael Fal
City Planner
City of RosevilJe
MF:cf
2660 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE · ROSEVILLE · MINNESOTA · 55113-1899
612-490-2200 · FAX 612-490-2270
988 West Co. Rd. "D"
st. Paul, Minn. 55126
November 2, 1993
.tel 7-
."At ~~7
~#~
Mr. Dennis Welsch
Community Development Director
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minn. 55113
Dear Mr. Welsch:
After our meeting of November 1st. 1993, with you
and Mr. John. Shardlow, my S011 Curt and I are supportive
of. your recommendation to continue the Parkridge develop-
ment until such time that Vista 2000 and the Comprehensive
Plan are basically agreed upon. In other words, the sepia
is in place but not yet printed.
~Ne came away from this meeting with the understanding
that this could occur as early as March 1994, but not later
than May 1994.
To the above we are agreeable. Hopefully, all of the
loose ends will be in place by that time so that we can
begin construction on this development.
Respectfully
a~/(k
Parkridge Development
AI Kehr, partner
C.C. John. Shardlow
300 - 1st. Ave. No. Suite 210
Minneapolis, Minn. 55401
Curt Kehr
6612 Meadowridgw Court
North Richland Hills
Texas 76180
City of
Roseville
MEMO
Community Development Department
November 2, 1993
FROM:
Planning Commission
Dennis P. Welsch, Community Development Directo~
TO:
RE:
AL KEHR REZONING AND SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL
This morning John Shardlow and I met with Mr. Kehr to explain the
Comprehensive Plan Study that the Planning Commission is completing. He
was unaware of the detailed study of evolving neighborhoods and the needs for
mixed used housing as you have expressed.
Mr. Kehr asked that his project be continued until. the March, 1994,
Commission meeting in order to allow enough time for the Commission to
complete its work on the Housing Component of the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends continuing this project's hearings and further
consideration until the March, 1994, meeting when the Commission has
completed that portion of the Comprehensive Plan review.
J11 /
January 27, 1993
Al Kehr
988 W. County Road D
Roseville, MN 55113
Dear Mr. Kehr:
As a result of a lack of quorum, the Roseville City Council, at
its January 2'5, 1993 meeting, continued Parkridge Development
Corporation's request for rezoning, POD General concept Plan, and
comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential, to the February 8, 1993 City council
meeting.
If you should have any questions, please don't hesitate to
contact me at 490-2236.
Sincerely,
~Jc Jft~
Rick Jopke
Assistant Community Development Director
City of Roseville
:cf
2660 CIVIC CEI\TER DRIVE · ROSEVILLE · ~lI:\'I\ES()T.-\ · 55113-1899
612-490-2200 · FA...\: 612-490-2270
January 21, 1993
Mr. Craig Waldron
Director Community Development
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minn. 55113
After reviewing and taking into consideration the action
taken by the Planning Conunission, December 9, 1992, and the City
Council's work shop session, December 21, 1992, we have con-
cluded that the Parkridge Estates development will not be
approved at this time. It appears that both Council and Planning
Commission request more information on the proposed comprehensive
plan as it relates to our proposal.
In view of this, we respectfully request that the development
of the Parkridge Estates be tabled until the findings and rec-
ommendations can be incorporated in a new housing element of the
comprehensive plan. ire respectfully ask that you consider our
property along with other properties that you feel might be appro-
piate to change to medium density residential.
We are confident that upon your review of the findings and
facts, you will favorably consider our proposal.
It is our intent, as it was eleven years ago, to develop a
high quality town ~ome project that will not only compliment but
will also be an asset to Rosevi1le's housing needs.
Respectfully
CfJ J~
Parkridge Development Corp.
Al Kehr, Partner ()
(
121'1/92 16:45
DSU, INC.
..¡...¡...¡. ROSEVILLE
141 001
, .,
I)AlILf;RF,N'
SI lJ\RJJIJ )\¡V
I\J\JI)· tJBl\N
¡="'=UI~;:·t' J::A~t t::'
CONSBi.TING PLANNE.RS
LAl'\iDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
,;ÚO FIRST A\¡'EmJE NORTH
SUITE Z 10 '
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
61.2-339'::;,:;00
---.-.--
r--RQM:' -
Craig Wahhon
Phll-càÏÏsö~ DSU;,]'rf~--··'
lofpages ... L
MEMORANDUM
Co..
DATE:
21 December 1992
, PtJone#
TO:
Fø#
-'---~J
~-'._._---,'. . -- ...
.."_ ...._--"-... .___._~_.n
..
RE: PadaidgeEStates PUD/Rev:ísed Plans
When we met last week with Äi ~ and his architects rega:rding the Parkridge Estates PUD, MI.
Kehr offered a revised site pm: shoWing 26 units, instead of the preVious 28 units. There were also
modifications to the landscape pIan to screen neighboring properties. and enhance each entry~ While
the~e revision.~ improved some asPects of the project, they created other problems which I believe to
be "far;] I flaws" in the design: eWe did not have the opportnriiiy at tI$ meeting to revîewthe project
in detail and analyze all its implications. Having bad the chance to look at the project in the 1ast few
days I want you to be a.ware of some- serious conçems I have with"this latest plan. There may be
other issues as the project is furthèr-refined. The two issues of concern so fm' are:
1) Internal S~aång V~ The distance betWéëIi.:1Ìnits facing each other in the revised
plan is about 35'. which is not adequate for this situation. The ~ setback in a !ñm1Ì::n- sitnation
for single-family homes (rear yard to rear yatd) is 60'; the sëtóaCk-shown in the previously submitted
~-1JD1t plan is 50'. This is aÎL 8bso1nte minimum and I believe we shou1d not recommend approval of
a project with anything less t:hän a 50' dimen!rion. (At our meetiµg, I read this dimension as 46'; in
fÆ:t,. it was labelled 35.46'. an example of why we carinot gíve finnrecommendations having had one
iookata plan around)hetabIe)~
2) . Stonil Pomling.. The 28-unit pIan had. shown on-~ ponding in the miñðle of the site. Èven
though. we_.si1ggested that the units were too close to the proposed ponding area, there was enough
room to physically acconttnoWite the stoIm water.. In the revised 26-:unît pIan, there is even less open
space internally, making it very unlikely that stoIm ponding cotÙd be ~ommodated on site at an..
Mr.. K.ehI:indicates he wants .tøpursue an off-site solution, but I want to mak6ít clear that the two
plans are not equalin regard to the ability to handle on-site poJidingrin· case tbë off-site project does
nøtwork. '
- --Y:;;.
c!'FJ¡
¡:
December 18, 1992
Al Kehr
988 w. county Road D
Roseville, MN 55126
Dear Mr. Kehr:
The Roseville city Council, at its December 14, 1992 meeting,
continued your request for PUD Concept Development Plan approval,
rezoning from R-1 to PUD and Comprehensive Plan Amendment from
Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential to the
January 25, 1992 city council meeting.
If you should have any questions, please don't hesitate to
contact me at 490-2236.
Sincerely,
µ~
Rick Jopke
Assistant Community Development Director
City of Roseville
:cf
2660 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE. ROSE\lLLE· MII\'NESOTA· 55113-1899
612-490-2200 · FAX 612-490-2270
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City
of Roseville will meet at Roseville city Hall, 2660 civic center
Drive, on Wednesday, December 9, 1992 at 7: 30 p.m., for the
purpose of considering the following request:
Parkridge Development Corporation request for rezoning from R-1
to Planned unit Development (PUD) and general concept plan
approval south of County Road C and west of Dale Street. The
applicant wishes to construct a 29-unit townhome development on
3.67 acres of land.
The City Council, of the City of Roseville, will meet on Monday,
December 14, 1992 at city Hall at 7:30 p.m., to consider this
request.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
East Parcel
That part of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the northeast
1/4 of section 11, Township 29, Range 23, described as follows:
commencing at a point 33 feet West and 33 feet South of the
Northeast corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of
section 11, Township 29, Range 23: thence West on a line parallel
to the North line of said Northeast 1/4, 263.88 feet to point of
.beginning: thence West on the same line 98.96 feet: thence South
409.83 feet to a point 395.24 feet West of the East line of said
section: thence East 98.81 feet: thence North 410.10 feet to
place of beginning. Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Middle Parcel
That part of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast
1/4 of section 11, Township 29, Range 23, described as follows:
commencing at a point 33 feet West and 33 feet South of the
Northeast corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of
section 11, Township 29, Range 23: thence West on a line parallel
to the North line of said Northeast 1/4, 362.84 feet to point of
beginning: thence West on the same line 98.97 feet: thence South
409.56 feet to a point 494.05 feet West of the East line of said
section: thence East 98.81 feet: thence North 409.83 feet to
place of beginning. Ramsey County, Minnesota.
J~IJI
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 12-14-92
ITEM NO.: (] -;L
Departm~proval:
Item Description:
Manager Reviewed:
Agenda section:
~~
Hearings
Parkridge Development Corporation request for
PUD concept development plan approval,
rezoning from R-1 to PUD and comprehensive
plan amendment from low density residential to
medium density residential.
Backaround:
1. The Roseville Planning commission continued consideration of
Parkridge Development corporation request for rezoning, PUD
concept plan, and comprehensive plan amendment approval until
January 13, 1993 to address density, design, and utility
issues raised at the Planning commission meeting.
Staff Recommendation:
1. It is recommended that the city council continue
consideration of Parkridge Development Corporation request
for rezoning, PUD concept plan, and comprehensive plan
amendment approval until January 25, 1993.
council Action Reauested:
1. Motion to continue Parkridge Development corporation request
for rezoning, PUD general concept plan, and comprehensive
plan amendment approval until January 25, 1993.
ª~ I ! . I 'HI i I ; .
W i , I.., : ,J, I
\.Jill i I
Qw I , , , (,.J J 1=1
-l- I , ¡ II' } i !.¡;\
œo( , ! h- ì ¡ I-
I I",
:"=1- I , 'I' , I ' ~
I I
~!íl Ji i 1 I I ; I, it Idl1
I I
Q. I ! I h I iJ
---..--..-.-
.J Lu_J L_~d--J L_____J ~~uu
- . -- - - ---- ... ------- - ---', --
'" ----. 4_ -.-- --._. .. __..
.-... _..----- --....-- - - .. - . .
----
Itl
~ .
::Jt
QI--
Fi3
CI)
to-
Z
:J
\D
N
l-
-----
l-
~
- -5 -
l- 'i l- -
~ ã.
I ..
..
fÆ IoIJ II : I
"'III I fll : I : ,
OIolJ I I I ' III' . '...I
-l- I
Þ:o( I II i (..J I i~
- - :"=1- I'
- . II t , l~
:-:¡: ~ ~Ifi i ' · i I " 11-::
~ I I : ¡IIi !
-.. ---- Ji : 'III r.~1
I 11. I
'J
~______~ ~J L___J L__J l~___
---~. .--_._~.,-_._- ~ ..-...---.------ "'---' .-- ..,---'.-- -.....-. -_.-. -..--.-..- ..---..--.-----.. ....---- -...--.-....
"'....----------_. -.. --.
I
--cr.
·.~
i
'
I
!
~~
be" .
c::C"
. - ...,
( )(Ij
~>-
-.
þc"
c:·e
.- ...
fl)W1
t
, ~
~
squish
-'
split
~
.
squish
~
Roseville City Council Minutes
December 14, 1992
P. Johnson moved, Maschka seconded, that Resolution
8871, providing for issuance of $2,300,000 of General
Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series 19, be
adopted. Roll Call, Ayes: Thomas, P. Johnson,
Maschka, Cushman, and V. Johnson. Nays: None.
F-4
CUshman moved, Maschka seconded, that the proposed
utility rate increases for Fiscal Year 1993 be
approved. Roll Call, Ayes: Thomas, P. Johnson,
Maschka, Cushman, and V. Johnson. Nays: None.
Thomas moved, Maschka seconded, that the City of
Roseville's 1993-1997 Capital Improvement Program be
approved. Roll Call, Ayes: Thomas, P. Johnson,
Maschka, Cushman, and V. Johnson. Nays: None.
F-5
- --
Page 5
RBSOLUTION
8871
1993
UTILITY RATE
ADJUSTJŒNTS
CAPITAL
IKPROVBJŒN'l'
PROGRAM
1993-1997
F-6 Maschka moved, P. Johnson seconded, that Resolution RBSOLUTION
8872, for apportionment of assessments on the 8872
requested division of property by Ramsey county:
Division No. DB063998, be adopted. Roll Call, Ayes:
Thomas, P. Johnson, Maschka, Cushman, and V. Johnson.
Nays: None.
G. ITBKS RBXOVBD PROK COBSEN'l' AGEHDA
Items B-6, B-7, and B-9, removed from Consent Agenda.
G-1
Maschka moved, Cushman seconded, that a petition
receiving and ordering preparation of a feasibility
report for drainage improvements to serve the County
Road C/Dale Street area be continued to the January
11, 1993 City Council meeting and discussed at the
regular City Council work session of December 21,
1992. Roll Call, Ayes: Thomas, P. Johnson, Maschka,
CUshman, and V. Johnson. Nays: None.
Maschka moved, Thomas seconded, that the following
be deleted from the second page of the resolution
relating to the Fire Relief Pension Increase:
"Provided however, the January 1, 1994 increase shall
be subject to reconsideration if any proposed changes
are made in the attached investment pOlicies in spite
of the objections of the city Council." Roll Call,
Ayes: Thomas, P. Johnson, and Maschka. Nays: Cushman
and V. Johnson.
G-2
PARDIDGE
DBVBLOPJŒNT
DRAIDGE
IKPROVBJŒNTS
PIRB RBLIEP
PENSION
P. Johnson moved, V. Johnson seconded, that the
following be changed on the second page of the resolu-
tion relating to the Fire Relief Pension Increase:
change 20 days to 30 days, and deleted "and/or City
Manager." Roll Call, Ayes: Thomas, P. Johnson,
Maschka, Cushman, and V. Johnson. Nays: None.
Maschka moved, Cushman seconded, that Resolution 8873, RESOLUTION
adopting Fire Relief Pension Increase, be adopted as 8873
amended. Roll Call, Ayes: Thomas, P. Johnson, Maschka,
and Cushman. Nays: V. Johnson.
eville City Council Minutes
Ðruary 8, 1993
Check Nos. 34123 - 34152
35543 - 35675
36413 - 36533
35677 - 35743
34153 - 34187
36572 - 36717
36535 - 36570
36719 - 36746
36749 - 36874
$ 401,742.05
113,450.77
274,276.65
309,102.47
356,204.56
102,284.59
237,863.92
49,903.52
225.898.81
$2,070,727.34
Roll Call, Ayes: Goedeke, P. Johnson, and Maschka.
Nays: None.
Page 4
HEARINGS
Goedeke moved, P. Johnson seconded, that Har Mar, Inc. BAR MAR, INC.
request for preliminary and final plat at the northwest
quadrant of County Road C and Snelling Avenue North be
continued to the regular City council meeting of
February 22, 1993. Roll Call, Ayes: Goedeke, P.
Johnson, and Maschka. Nays: None.
P. Johnson moved, Goedeke seconded, that a public
hearing concerning seasonal banners and institutional
signs be continued to the regular City Council meeting
of February 22, 1993. Roll Call, Ayes: Goedeke, P.
Johnson, and Maschka. Nays: None.
P. Johnson moved, Goedeke seconded, that william
Sievers' request for Special Use Permit for an auto-
mobile service use, site plan approval, and setback
variances at 1526 W. County Road B be continued to the
regular City Council meeting of March 8, 1993. Roll
Call, Ayes: Goedeke, P. Johnson, and Maschka. Nays:
None.
Goedeke moved, P. Johnson seconded, that parkridge
Development Corporation's request for rezoning, P.U.D.
General Concept Plan, and comprehensive Plan Amendment
be continued to the regular City Council meeting of
September 13, 1993. Roll Call, Ayes: Goedeke, P.
Johnson, and Maschka. Nays: None.
P. Johnson moved, Goedeke seconded, that Netlease
systems, Inc. request for Special Use Permit at 1918
W. County Road C be withdrawn, subject to receiving
written confirmation of the withdrawal. Roll Call,
Ayes: Goedeke, P. Johnson, and Maschka. Nays: None.
Goedeke moved, P. Johnson seconded, that James Kraut-
bauer's request for rezoning from B-3 and R-1 to R-2
at l65 S. Owasso Boulevard be withdrawn. Roll Call,
Ayes: Goedeke, P. Johnson, and Maschka. Nays: None.
CITY SIGN
ORDINANCE
WILLIAK
SIEVERS
PARKRIDGB
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
NETLEASB
SYSTBMS, IIIC.
JAMBS
lCRAUTBAUBR
Roseville City Council Minutes
November 22, 1993
c.
'C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
HEARINGS
Maschka moved, Cushman seconded, that Robert Levine/
Palisades Limited Partnership request for vacation of
right-of-way and utility and drainage easements at
535, 550, 565, and 570 Sandhurst Drive be continued to
the regular City Council meeting of December 13, 1993.
Roll Call, Ayes: P. Johnson, Cushman, Goedeke,
Maschka, and V. Johnson. Nays: None.
Cushman moved, P. Johnson seconded, that parkridge
Development corporation's request for rezon~ng from R-
1 to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Comprehensive
Guide Plan amendment from low density residential to
medium density residential at 674 W. County Road C be
continued to the regular city council meeting of March
28, 1994. Roll Call, Ayes: P. Johnson, Cushman,
Goedeke, Maschka, and V. Johnson. Nays: None.
P. Johnson moved, Maschka seconded, that Theodore
Brausen's request for Special Use Permit for an Off
Sale Liquor establishment at 2180 N. Dale Street be
approved with the following conditions:
1- That the business remain a mail order operation
with over-the-counter retail sales.
2. That there be no signage identifying the business.
3. That the Special Use Permit be limited to the time
that a valid Off Sale Liquor License is in effect.
Roll Call, Ayes: P. Johnson, Cushman, Goedeke,
Maschka, and V. Johnson. Nays: None.
Maschka moved, P. Johnson seconded, that Theodore
Brausen's (T. C. Bear, Inc., dba Select Vintage)
application for Off Sale Liquor License at 2180 N.
Dale Street be approved subject to the provisions of
the Special Use Permit. Roll Call, Ayes: P. Johnson,
Cushman, Goedeke, Maschka, and V. Johnson. Nays:
None.
Maschka moved, Goedeke seconded, that Aladdin's Castle
request for special Use Permit for an entertainment
center at 1705 W. Highway 36 be approved with the
following conditions:
1. That the Special Use Permit be limited to the time
that a valid game room license is in effect.
2. That closing hours be restricted to one-half hour
after Mall closing.
Roll Call, Ayes: P. Johnson, Cushman, Goedeke,
Maschka, and V. Johnson. Nays: None.
Page 2
ROBERT LEVINE/
PALISADES
LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP
PARKRIDGE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
THEODORE
BRAUSEN
SPECIAL USE
PERMIT
THEODORE
BRAUSEN OFF
SALE LIQUOR
LICENSE
ALADDIN'S
CASTLE
SPECIAL USE
PERMIT
Roseville City Council Minutes
April 25, 1994
1)-2
BEARINGS
Goedeke moved, wiski seconded, that Parkridge
Development Corporation's request for Planned unit
Development (PUD) Concept Development Plan approval,
rezoning from R-1 Single Family to PUD at 674, 656,
and 646 W. county Road C be continued to the regular
City Council meeting of May 23, 1994. Roll Call,
Ayes: wi ski , Goedeke, P. Johnson, Mastel, and v.
Johnson. Nays: None.
Wi ski moved, Goedeke seconded, that consideration of
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential and Institutional to Medium Density
Residential at 720, 716, 700, 690, 686, 644, 634, 636,
and 626 W. County Road C be continued to the regular
City Council meeting of May 23, 1994. Roll Call,
Ayes: Wiski, Goedeke, P. Johnson, Mastel, and V.
Johnson. Nays: None.
This item was deferred to J-1, ITEMS TABLED, because
the applicants were not present at this time and
were expected to arrive later in the meeting.
P. Johnson moved, Mastel seconded, that Ordinance
1137, amending Section 31.060 of the City Code of the
City of Roseville, regulating excavation, grading,
surfacing, and filling of land in the City of Rose-
ville, be adopted. Roll Call, Ayes: wiski, Goedeke,
P. Johnson, Mastel, and V. Johnson. Nays: None.
ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
Goedeke moved, P. Johnson seconded, that four special
city Council work sessions, to be held at Roseville
City Hall, be established to allow the Council to
attend the following meetings without violating the
Open Meetings Act:
1. April 27, beginning at 7:00 p.m., for a Planning
Commission Study Meeting with emphasis on
Environmental Issues and Neighborhoods.
2. May 4, beginning at 6:30 p.m., for a joint meeting
with the Planning Commission and vista 2000 Chairs
and volunteers regarding the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan.
3. May 25, beginning at 7:00 p.m., for a Planning
Commission Study Meeting with emphasis on comple-
tion of Transportation and Environmental Issues.
4. June 8, beginning at 7:30 p.m., for a Planning
Commission Public Hearing on revisions to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Roll Call, Ayes: wiski, Goedeke, P. Johnson, Mastel,
and V. Johnson. Nays: None.
Page 3
PARKRIDGB
DEVELOPHBft
CORPORATIO.
CONSIDBRATION
OF
COXPRBHBIfSIVE
PLAN AllBIIDJlBN'I
HAR MAR, INC.
ORDINANCB
1137
SPECIAL
CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSIONS
Roseville City Council Minutes
13, 1994
Page 6
Goedeke moved, P. Johnson seconded, that the following 1994 MATERIAL
bids for street Department materials be approved: BIDS
1. Class 5
2. FA-1 Sand
3. FA-2 Buckshot
4. Type 32B Asphalt
5. Type 41B Asphalt
6. CRS-2 Asphalt
shiely Company
Barton Sand & Gravel
Shiely Company
Commercial Asphalt
Schifsky & Sons
Koch Materials
Roll Call, Ayes:
and V. Johnson.
Goedeke, Wiski, Mastel, P. Johnson,
Nays: None.
wiski moved, Goedeke seconded, that two members of
City Council, patricia Johnson and Barb Mastel, be
appointed to assist the Planning Commission in the
study and development of new draft shoreline
regulations. Roll Call, Ayes: Goedeke, Wiski,
Mastel, P. Johnson, and V. Johnson. Nays: None.
the DEVELOPMENT
OF NEW SHORB
LAND MANAGE-
MENT ORDINANCE
Goedeke moved, Wiski seconded, that Resolution 9087, RESOLUTION
approving the extension of a moratorium on the 9087
consideration of all applications for variances to the
shore land management regulations and for building
permits to construct any structure or deck with 75
feet of the normal high water line of any public water
on shore lands as defined in Roseville city Code
Chapter 18 to October 1, 1994, be adopted. Roll Call,
Ayes: Goedeke, wi ski , Mastel, P. Johnson, and V.
Johnson. Nays: None.
8
Mastel moved, Goedeke seconded, that the Mayor and
City Manager be authorized to enter into an agreement
for the 1995 star of the North Summer Games with the
Minnesota Amateur Sports commission State Games Board,
and to provide for up to $20,000 of initial costs
which are to be reimbursed, with interest, from the
Games fees and charges. Roll Call, Ayes: Goedeke,
Wiski, Mastel, P. Johnson, and V. Johnson. Nays:
None.
STAR OF THB
NORTH SUMMER
GAMES
Wiski moved, V. Johnson seconded, that Parkridge
Development corp.fAl Kehr's request for withdrawal of
the application for Planned Unit Development (PUD)
concept Development Plan approval, rezoning from R-1
to PUD at 674, 656, and 646 W. County Road C be
approved, with no refunding of fees. Roll Call, Ayes:
Goedeke, Wiski, Mastel, P. Johnson, and V. Johnson.
Nays: None.
PARKRIDGE
DEVELOPMENT
CORP./AL KEBR
10 wi ski moved, P. Johnson seconded, that Resolution RESOLUTION
9088, stating concern to MWCC regarding a proposed 9088
rate increase for 1995, be adopted. Roll Call, Ayes:
Goedeke, wiski, Mastel, P. Johnson, and V. Johnson.
Nays: None.
12/10/92 13:00
DSU. INC.
-t..,-t ROSEVILLE
141001
1 1
Post-lt,.. brand fax tninsmittal memo 767'1 tJafpages" 2--
¡,,, ~ J,iv-ch
To J<4?í W
eo..
co.
Dept.
pþone #
Fa,
Fm:#
< _..__. ___ _.__ _ .__. _ .___un_ _____,,",___..__.,.. __...... ",.0"__'''_. . _ ,_ ._
. ,- - ".-.. . .
MEMORANDUM
D..xrE:
10 Deœmber 1992
TO:
Craig Wa1dron, RickJopke
FROM:
John Shardlow. AlCP
KI·
Discussion ofParlaidge PÐD Project. NeîghboIbood Position. Planning Commission
Action
From reviewing our planning report you know 1bat 1here ale a :mnnber of unanswered questions
regarding Mr. Kebfs development proposal. I wüI.not duplicate that infQ]mati~ except to bigblight
what: I believe to be the most important œm:solved. ÎSSJ.1.eS.
With genoine a:ffuction for AL I can. say that one of 1he biggest: prob1fms in working with bìm is that
b8 co:nsîstenrly chooses what he wants 10 ~ I believe this is t.roe in his mnnerous meetings wDh
myself and our staff (going an tbe way back to HowaId). obviously tme inhis res¡xmse to the
Planning Commi~sioo.·s commeom at the SIœtcb. Plan. Review. and cl.eady evident in. his
misunderstanding of 1be neigbbo:d1ood's position. This selective 1istenîng ttans1.ates to selective
reading as be did not understand our plæming report to be fundamentally in su£'pott ofhis project. or
the clear distinction we were m~~ between commitments be needed m make, veÌsos rel3ted,
broader coIDIIJ.itmeDts that the City needed to make (Ïe. the fumre road extension to Da1e Street and the
change in. the Land Use PJan).
At the meeting last nig1:¢ this prob1em moved from problematic to bizaIre when neither AL nor any of
his representatÏves cou1d hear what was being said by the PI mning Cnmmi~on members or
neighbors due to the SOlJIld ~ DOt being tnmed up sufficiently. It would seem logical to me to
ei:Iber move to the tnJnt of the room. (from 1he very last row) or Jet us know 1hat: they can't hear sooner.
but we did not know until Pat Johnson spoke up well:into the hearirtg.
I know 1hat you. are. attempting to put mgether a memo to AI so I will briefly DOte wbere tœ project
sits as a reso:h of tbePhmning Commission's actîonJastnight. I wiD. divide these comments ìnto its
stttns wi1h us as a staff. with the PI mning CoIIlIIlission. and with the neighborl1ood.
Staff:
Simply stated the number of 1II1ÎrS proposed on 1be site do not fit. The edges with both of the adjacent
single famïl ~ i'fI. )peIties are just too tight and theIe is virtnaIly no buffering. AI bears comments like
this and sa) s I plan! huy BoJgmrùIll and the project is designed to expand to both the east and west,
which would œsol y~ these problems. Wen. we agree that such changes wou1d respond to these
œnœrns and we have been erIthusiasticany snpporting 1he assemblage of adjacent parc:e1s for many
12/10/92 13:01
DSU, INC.
-h'H ROSEVILLE
141002
years. The pom is 1hat 1lJese adjacent properties are not part of tile project today and 1he ~y
proposed relationships between tbîs project. and these bomes íS unacceptab1e.
Assuming that a. reduction in density in the order of =/- 5 UIIÌtS could ftee up enongh land to improve
these edge condiI:îons. tbere remain other site p1anrring îssnes. How will. pondîng be handled? If it can
be handled off site we agree that is great. .As ofyesrerday. we understand 1ñat there is no such
solution. If it bas to occur on 1he property. bow often wm it be filled with water. how long will ît bold
water. how close win it be to the units?
The questions about 1he ponding also affect 1he landscaping plans. No. you. do not have 10 have final
landscape plans at this stage in. the process. but, we do bave to see a represenratîon oftbe developer's
COII1Inìtment: to landscaping and we need sufficient detail to evaluate if it is feasible. The p1ans
submitted TD date are rota11y înadeqDare. in te:m1S of amomtt oflandscaping and trees are shown plaut:ed
off his property and severo trees are shown wið:1in the proposed ponding areas that would not live
there. This :înfonn~rifID bas been conveyed tel Me. Kerr and be has cbosen not tD spend the money to
have these plans prepared.
Planning Commi~c;ian:
I wæ very emphatic with the Commission that it was in nobody's best intereSt 10 send the project back
for tweaking. if what 1hey were rea1ly saying is 1hat the density needs to be sobstarnially œdlJœif
before tbey would support the ~mMdmP.nt aDd œz.()n'Îng The majority expressed support for a change
that would coIreCt the compat1öility problems with adjacent neigbbJring properties. I think tbat ccmld
probably be dODf:. w:iIh a +/- S unit 1'ednction.
Katie HaJIIls voted against.1he motion because she sees her role as supporting the neighbor's posîtîon.
I am aJso conœroed that neither Ed. Roberts. nor Ondy 'Ibomas were at the meeting. From 1beir
comments and actions at previous meeûr\gs. I wouJd be conœmed. tbæ: Ed could tend to oppose the
change inland use and Cindy might not support the project without an even greater re<hJction in
density. Now 1hat is my gut feel. but, tbe poirltis they were not present and they are not foDowers. AI
had better taJœ the initiative to get a reading from these two.
The Nei.gbbors:
The position. oftbe œîgbbors was sigrñfil'..anr1y more negative 1han their previous comments. They
have obviously decided that 1bey better take a stand and. as ofIast nigbt that position was in strong
opposition. TD a change in 1and use and znn11'\g They did not talk about 1he magnitude of change tba1
would make 1iñs acceptable, 1hey said it was not acceptable period. Again. AI bas said repeatedly that
he has one detIactor. wilen they showed up UIJited against the project. In &imP..ß Tn him, their
comments last night did:represent a shift finro their position at tbe iniria1 sketch plan review.
PARKRIDGE PROJECT
1. You may want to consider a reduction in the density based on
the general "tone" of the Planning Commission.
2. The drainage and utility issues need to be resolved. It is
suggested that this continue to occur with the Public Works
Department to attempt to find an off-site ponding location.
3.
A more comprehensive landscape plan will need to
developed to show the level of commitment to landscaping
with sufficient detail to make sure it is feasible
consistent with the City's ordinances.
be
and
and
4. There needs to be additional space and buffering along the
east and west edges of the property.
5. It is unclear how snow removal and storage will be handled.
6. Another potential area which concerns staff is the fact that
Planning Commission members Edward Roberts and Cynthia
Thomas were not at the meeting. It is unknown if they have
other issues which may need to be resolved.
PLANB:I:NG REPORT
DATE:
9 December 1992
CASE NUMBER:
2471
APPLICANT:
parkridge Development Corp.
Al Kehr, Partner
LOCATION:
674 W. county Road C
(West of Dale street)
ACTION REQUESTED:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Planned unit Development
General Development Plan
1. BACKGROUND
Mr. Al Kehr and his partners own three deep single-family lots on
county Road C on which they are proposing a residential PUD
consisting of 29 townhouse units, to be called Parkridge Estates.
The property is currently guided LR Low Density Residential and is
zoned R-1. The proposal requires a change in the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use designation to KR Medium Density Residential, and a
rezoning to Planned unit Development with an underlying zoning of
R-6 Townhouse District.
The project is related to one proposed by Mr. Kehr in 1985 on one
of the three lots. That proposal involved a rezoning to R-2, a
variance on density, and a special Use Permit for a PUD. Under
the current Code all of these issues can be handled within the PUD
process. The project consisted of 13 units on the westernmost lot
(1.55 acres) and was turned down by the City Council.. Mr. Kehr
then sued the city, asking for the rezoning to be granted. The
court ruled in the city's favor and the project did not go ahead.
since then, Mr. Kehr has acquired two more lots to the east of the
original lot, more than doubling the land area involved. The new
project is similar in character and density to the previous
project, and the units themselves are similar in size and design.
The earlier project was served by a single cul-de-sac drive; the
current project has a loop street with two access drives to County
Road C. The 1985 project was 8.4 units/acre, this project is
slightly less dense, at 7.9 units/acre.
We have met several times wi th Mr. Kehr and his archi tects to
discuss the overall layout and design of the project, noting on
several occasions that it is not guaranteed that this basic land
use will be approved in this location. The Planning commission
Parkridge Development, Case No. 2471
page 2
reviewed the project as a Sketch Plan at the November meeting. The
project has been modified slightly since the Sketch Plan review,
and has been further modified since drawings were submitted a few
weeks ago. Mr. Kehr and his architects indicate that the project
is still being refined and may undergo further changes before it
is finalized. The changes involve the removal of one and perhaps
two units, modification of the community room, grading changes due
to a potential change in the handling of storm ponding, and minor
architectural design features. None of these changes alters the
basic character and layout of the project. Beyond these changes,
some features of the plan have been left in a concept stage,
particularly the landscape plan which does not show specific
species or sizes.
Because the project has not been submitted in final form with
details required for General Stage PUD approval, the Planning
commission cannot act on that request. This being the case, the
Planning commission may wish to use this opportunity as a "second
stage" Sketch Plan to consider the broad issues involved in the
project and give a clear indication of whether the project is
likely to be approved in some form or not, understanding that the
Commission need not make a final decision if the applicant has not
presented a final design according to the city's submission
requirements.
2. DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
site Area:
Building Footprint:
Building Coverage:
Streets &
Driveways Coverage:
Green Area Coverage:
3.67 acres
42,000 sf
26%
22%
52%
Number of units:
single Story
Two-story
29 townhouses (all 2 BR)
6 units
23 units
Density
Lot Area Per unit
7.9 u/a (13.2 u/a allowed in R-6) b'-\ U
5,513 sf (4,000 sf in R-6)
Sors
3. DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
Plannina Considerations
The basic question to be addressed in this application is whether
townhouses at this density are an appropriate land use for this
property. This question should be answered first, before the many
parkridge Development, Case No. 2471
Page 3
other details of the plan are considered. selecting one set of
criteria, a positive conclusion could be reached; using different
criteria, the opposite could be found.
The larger context of the site includes higher density development
(townhouses and condominiums) in the quadrant northeast of the
intersection of Dale street and County Road C (see Context Plan).
Vacant land in the southeast quadrant of that intersection is
guided DR High Density Residential. West of Dale street, the area
consists of. single-family neighborhoods wi th Central Park to the
south. Closer in, the site is bounded by a busy County road on the
north, a large institutional use (the American Legion) to the
southwest, and the park to the south. This mix of adjacent uses
might be compatible with a medium density 4evelopment.
Immediately adjacent to the site, however, are single-family homes
to the west, east, and north across County Road C. The proposed
project would build 29 new housing units whose sole street access
is to County Road C. These considerations would argue for
continued low density development.
The project is designed with a U-shaped private street accessing
County Road C. Mr. Kehr has attempted to purchase the adjacent
lot to the east (Borgstrom property) and other properties out to
Dale street. It has been suggested that all or part of the
American Legion property may be redeveloped some day. The
Parkridge project is designed to be able to connect easily either
to the east or west, if these properties become available.
The question of the ultimate extension of this land use into the
whole block of properties bounded by County Road C, Dale street,
Central Park, and the American Legion is crucial to the decision
on this proj ect. This was true when the previous proj ect was
proposed. A condition of approval suggested in the 1985
application was the acquisition of roadway easements through the
neighboring properties east to Dale street. This would have
provided an east-west through street south of county Road C to
serve this development. Testimony of the city's planner, Howard
Dahlgren, in the 1985 case notes:
"City representatives consistently emphasized to [Mr. Kehr]
that the reasonableness of his project was dependent upon
the extension of a higher densi ty of housing development
easterly through contiguous properties to Dale street.
However, the property owners whose property would have been
so affected did not support the proj ection of such use on
and through their properties. In fact, some of these
affected property owners stated strong opposition to such
project development.
parkridge Development, Case No. 2471
Page 4
"Although the city has approved development such as that
proposed by [Mr. Kehr] where the development constitutes a
transition use between business or high density residential
uses and a low density residential use, the city has never
granted approval for development of a project of this
density on a lot of this size·where such density creates an
enclave of medium density development in the middle of a
single family residential area having large lots and
substantial open space".
It is this. idea of creating an "enclave" of townhouses within a
single-family area that distinguishes this project from other
similar projects in the city, such as Can-Am, Rottlund/Concordia,
or the various proposals on the Busse property. standing by
itself, we believe the project has weaknesses; tied ultimately
into the larger city street network and adjacent neighborhoods,
the project is stronger. In this context, if the Parkridge
project is approved the City should be willing to extend the HR
designation east and west from this property and insure that the
roadway system serves the area, as illustrated on the attached
map, possible Land Use Guide Change.
Mr. Kehr has had several neighborhood meetings with area
residents, including some with city staff at City Hall. Mr. Kehr
and these neighbors will be able to comment on their current
feelings about this land use in their neighborhood. In the
meetings we attended, neighbors across county Road C had strong
objections to the proposal. Among the objections were:
Densitv. The scale of the project was seen as out of
character with the existing large-lot single-family homes in
the immediate area.
Traffic. Traffic would be higher than the current condition
or a maximized single-family plan on the property, and would
be concentrated at the two driveway openings to County Road
c. The neighbors are correct in assuming higher traffic
concentrations due to the project, but it would not be
proportionally higher, because townhouses typically generate
less traffic per unit than single-family homes. Based on
average trip generation rates, the 29 townhouse units would
generate about the same total traffic as 18 single-family
homes. If a street were eventually extended from this area
east to Dale street, it would relieve some of the traffic
onto County Road C.
Related to the traffic is a concern over headlights shining
into homes across County Road C. The plan has the two
driveway openings aligned with two existing driveways on the
north side of County Road C, which addresses this concern.
Residents opposite any city street intersection would face
Parkridge Development, Case No. 2471
Page 5
the same situation. There is also considerable existing
landscaping in the private yards north of County Road C to
help screen the car lights.
Desian of the Facades Facing County Road C. There was
concern that the architectural character of the project as
seen from county Road C would be imposing. Responding to
this, the architects have made all the units facing County
Road C single story with the short side facing north. The
three facades facing this direction are each about 52' wide.
If new single-family lots were developed on this frontage,
there could be four homes, each two-story and 70' or more in
width.
Comprehensive Plan References
The 1979 Comprehensive Plan defines Low Density Residential as up
to four units per acre, Medium Density Residential as up to ten
units per acre, and High Density Residential as over ten units per
acre. The current proposal falls in the upper end of the Medium
Density range, and therefore requires a change in the Land Use
Plan designation.
While the City has great discretion in making land use and zoning
changes, and is under no obligation to do so in this case, there
is no clear policy framework in place to guide this decision. The
Goals, General Policies, and Residential Policies from the 1979
Comprehensive Plan are attached and provide some guidance. Some
of these policies could be interpreted to either support or reject
the Kehr proposal. For example:
GOALS:
2. Maintain the existing residential areas of the city.
GENERAL POLICIES:
5. Encourage adequate transitions and buffering between
incompatible land uses.
RESIDENTIAL POLICIES:
1. Preserve the integrity of existing single family
neighborhoods by prohibiting the intrusion of incompatible
uses. Require strict adherence to all performance standards
where higher intensity uses are located adjacent to single
family neighborhoods.
5. Encourage innovative planning and design in residential
developments.
Parkridge Development, Case No. 2471
page 6
6. Adopt more flexible minimum standards for single family
and multi-family housing developments to allow for
innovative development and more efficient densities.
8. Encourage the development of well-designed mUltiple
family dwelling projects which are compatible with adjacent
uses.
10. Encourage a variety of housing types for all age
groups, in all stages of the life cycle.
A recent housing study for the City by Maxfield Research Group
noted the need for a broader housing base in the community, beyond
the predominant single-family stock. The Kehr proposal, aimed at
the "empty-nester", would fit part of the· need identified in that
study. The City is now in the middle of the vista 2000 planning
process, and a Housing Task Force is one of the working groups in
the process. This task force will provide some insight and
suggested direction for the Housing Element of an updated
Comprehensive Plan, by formulating a clearer statement of the
community's goals for all types of housing in the community. But
these new policies have not yet been developed. The work of the
task force will be brought to the Planning commission and City
Council as part of the process of developing the new comprehensive
Plan.
Zonina Considerations
As the property is configured and zoned now, it could be divided
into four deep single-family lots fronting county Road C, which
would match the existing development in the area. with a
cul-de-sac or loop street, the property might be divided into as
many as twelve single-family lots that would meet city standards.
The request for 29 townhouse units more than doubles the current
allowable density.
The city has generally considered the LR Low Density designation
as allowing both R-1 and R-2 zoning, but has not routinely granted
all rezoning requests from R-1 to R-2 in the LR area. These
decisions have been made on a case-by-case basis. Using the
minimum standards for the R-2 District, the Kehr proposal might be
considered low density. Code allows a duplex on a minimum
11,000-square-foot lot, or 5,500 square feet per unit (7.92
units/acre). The parkridge Estates plan has 5,513 square feet of
lot area per unit, but no street right-of-way is taken out, since
the PUD proposes all private roads. We include these calculations
for information only, since we believe this approach is not in
line with the intent of the LR designation. We believe it is more
reasonable to rely on the general density ranges in the Comp Plan
in considering the character of a PUD, not the absolute minimum
standards of the R-2 District.
parkridge Development, Case No. 2471
page 7
The zoning district in Roseville most closely associated with
medium density housing of this type is the R-6 Townhouse District.
We suggest that the Parkridge PUD be compared to the R-6 standards
as the underlying zoning. A comparison of the pertinent standards
and the parkridge project is as follows:
Uses: Permitted uses are structures of three to eight
units, of townhouse type, sharing a common wall, having
individual front and rear entrances and privacy walls
separating the rear yards of adjacent units. Two family
units are allowed by Special Use Permit. The Parkridge plan
has two-unit to five-unit structures, all with private
entries as required, but not the privacy walls. We believe
the design of the units is acceptable and in keeping with
quality projects in today's market.· Privacy walls are not
essential.
Densitv: Required m~n~mum lot area per unit is 4,000
square feet, or 13.2 units per acre. Parkridge has 5,513
square feet per unit, or 7.9 units per acre.
Setbacks:
Front 30'
Side 15' or 3/4 of structure height.
Rear 30'
Structures must be 35' apart.
The Parkridge proj ect meets all these setbacks except the
distance between structures, which is typically 20'. Given
the design of the parkridge units, we feel this setback is
acceptable.
Heiqht:
The height limit is 30', which all structures in the
Parkridge plan meet.
Landscapinq
The landscape plan is general in nature and does not indicate
sizes or species, only "overstory Tree", "Evergreen", "Shrub",
etc. The amount of landscaping shown is very minimal for a project
of this size and character. Some specific comments are in order,
however:
Parkridge Development, Case No. 2471
Page 8
1) The number of overstory trees along County Road C
should be eight to meet the 50' spacing suggested in the
design standards; six are shown.
2) The overstory trees along County Road C are shown within
the addi tional 10' of right-of-way to be dedicated. These
should be moved back behind the new lot line.
3) Along the internal private streets, only shrubs are
indicated, wi th very few larger trees. These internal
streets ought to have a character similar to other
residential streets, with more overstory trees.
4) The entries to the units do not indicate any landscaping
at all, other than one or two shrubs out at the curb. A
typical entry planting plan should be developed, taking into
account the orientation of the units and proposing shade or
sun tolerant species where appropriate.
5) The east and west edges of the site show only shrubs.
Additional landscaping would be appropriate, both to screen
the units from neighboring properties and to provide back
yard interest (on the west edge) for the new residents. On
the east edge, the private street is shown 5' from the side
lot line. Although this is the minimum setback for a
driveway in residential districts, this new road is more
like a public street and should be set back at least 10',
both to provide more separation and screening from the
adj acent neighbor and to provide needed space to support
larger landscaping.
6) The south edge of the project abuts Central Park, where
there is a 30' drop down to the park on a wooded slope.
Even though there is considerable vegetation on this edge,
it is largely volunteer scrub growth and some additional
landscaping would be appropriate for the back yards of the
units facing the park.
7) The landscape plan has not been coordinated wi th the
drainage plan. Landscaping is shown within the on-site
ponding areas and on some of the slopes into the ponding
areas. The landscaping should be designed to work with
whatever on-site ponding provisions are proposed, to insure
the survival of the plantings.
Liqhtinq
Lighting is not shown on the plans, but we have discussed the
issue generally with Mr. Kehr. It is assumed that outdoor
lighting on each unit will take care of most of the lighting
parkridqe Development, Case No. 2471 Paqe 9
needed, with additional street liqhting to light the visitor
parking areas if lighting levels indicate they are needed.
parkina
Each of the townhouse units has a two-car garage, which satisfies
the Code requirement for parking. However, for a project such as
this, we believe it is necessary to have some common visitor
parking, since parking is not allowed on County Road C, and there
are no other city streets that serve the development. Even though
each unit will use the driveway for additional parking, that would
only allow for two additional spaces. Any family having an event
with several other couples or families would not have adequate
parking available. We asked the architects to provide at least an
additional 1/2 space per unit beyond the· garages and driveways,
dispersed more or less evenly across the site. This they have
done with "on-street" parallel parking on the private roads in
three locations, totalling 23 spaces. We believe the parking plan
is reasonable and adequate.
Sianage
One monument sign is shown on County Road C. We have not seen a
detailed design for it. The sign could be 100 square feet in area
if set back 30', and 50 square feet if set back 15'.
Screening
Several screening issues were discussed with regard to the
landscape plan, but one other issue deserves comment. The
one-story two-unit building in the northwest corner of the site is
set back 15' from the lot line. The bedroom and living room
windows of these units face into a retaining wall and garage on
the adjoining lot, a condition which is not apparent from the site
plan, and can only be seen on the Context Plan - Two attached.
Given the design of townhouses, this side yard actually functions
like the rear yard of most homes, providing a view and access into
the yard space behind the structure. To correct this very close
situation, the setback should be increased to 30' or more, the
units should be moved further south out of view of the garage, or
removed altogether.
Enaineerina Considerations
An additional 10' of right-of-way is needed for County Road C, and
is shown on the site plan, but not the grading and utility plan.
The attached grading plan shows on-site storm ponding along County
Road C connected to a di tch in the middle of the si te. Most
stormwater would drain into the City system in County Road C.
This design takes care of the water, but is not a very elegant
parkridge Development, Case No. 2471
Page 10
solution. It leaves only 5' in some cases from the back door of
the units to the 3:1 slope into the drainage basin. The ponding
takes up much of the yard space in the development, and during or
after a significant rainfall would be unusable.
An option that had been suggested to Mr. Kehr was to pay for
expanded ponding improvements further downstream near the Central
Park leaf dump rather than on-site ponding. In a preliminary look
at this idea, the Public Works Director has determined that there
is not sufficient room to accommodate the needed additional
ponding. Nevertheless, Mr. Kehr has petitioned for a City
feasibility study of this public improvement. If it turns out not
to be possible, ponding will have to be provided on-site.
Final engineering drawings have not been submitted, but the Public
Works Director has reviewed preliminary drawings with Mr.
engineer and has offered suggestions for several changes,
which would affect the overall design of the project.
engineering plans will be needed before final approval
given.
Kehr's
none of
Final
can be
Mr. Kehr has also inquired about the possibility of having the
city take over the private streets in the project. The streets
are shown 28' wide per city standards, but there would not be
enough room for even a 50' right-of-way if the streets were
public. Where two structures face each other across the private
road, they are separated by about 70'. Assuming a 50'
right-of-way, this would leave only 10' on each side for parking a
car in the driveway. There would be snow removal problems as well,
which a private property manager could handle, but which would be
beyond the City's typical needs for a public street. It is
certainly possible and acceptable for the project to include
publicly dedicated streets, but not as currently designed.
Parks & ODen SDace
The project must meet the city's park dedication requirements, and
will be scheduled for the January 5 Parks Commission meeting. Our
assumption is that the Parks Commission will take cash in lieu of
land for the project.
Fire Marshal Considerations
The Fire Marshal has reviewed the site
adequately for fire truck maneuvering, but
be located and clear arrangements made
hydrants.
plan. It functions
f ire hydrants need to
for maintaining the
Parkridqe Development, Case No. 2471
paqe 11
4. CONCLUSION
The City has recognized that alternative housing styles are needed
in the community, and large lots such as Mr. Kehr's land offer
logical locations for this type of development. We believe the
units Mr. Kehr would build would be of high quality and a welcome
addition to the City's housing stock. There are concerns,
however, about the specific proposal being offered, both in terms
of its compatibility with surrounding properties and its internal
functioning.
Given the character of the existing neighborhood, we believe the
project would present an attractive and appropriately-scaled face
to County Road C, but it would put all its traffic onto County
Road C, creating much more activity than would be associated with
single-family development. without clear plans to integrate this
proj ect into a neighborhood and street system connecting to Dale
Street, this development would be an "enclave", as noted in 1985.
with a clear plan, or at least the expression of the intent to
implement such a plan for this neighborhood, the Parkridge plan
becomes much more compatible with it surroundings. The commitment
to such a plan requires action by the City beyond Mr. Kehr's
control at this time.
Given the concerns about setbacks to the east for additional
separation and landscaping, and setbacks to the west for visual
purposes, and the drainage plan which takes up much of the
internal yard space in the proj ect, it appears that the overall
density of the project is too much for this site. . By removing
some units and reconfiguring the remainder, the site could support
a townhouse development with adequate landscaping, ponding,
setbacks, and usable yard space. If public streets are to be
dedicated, an additional set of standards would apply to the
design.
The basic question with any PUD is what benefit does the city get
in return for granting some flexibility to the developer. In the
case of the Parkridge PUD, the benefits should be more than simply
providing a needed form of housing in the city. We should expect
a plan which is integrated and compatible with its surroundings,
and which provides adequate space and features for its new
residents. We believe such a plan is possible for this site, if
the developer is willing and able to make the necessary internal
changes, and if the city is willing to provide the necessary
external framework to allow it to happen.
parkridge Development, Case No. 2471
Page 12
Given the location and potential of this area of the community, we
recommend that the City make the necessary broader commitment to
amend the planned land use for the area between the Parkridge
property and Dale street and to pursue the planned street
connection to Dale street. with the Planning Commission's
willingness to support these changes and Mr. Kehr's willingness to
make the necessary design improvements, we support the project and
would recommend its approval in concept. wi thout such
commitments, we recommend denial of the project as proposed.
In 1985 the crux of the lawsuit against the city on the previous
Kehr project was that the City Council did not adopt clear
findings in denying the rezoning. Whatever action the Planning
commission decides to take on this renewed proposal should be
accompanied, as should all zoning decisions, by clear and
reasonable statements of findings.
s~ 1" I ' rll - Ii I
II ¡, I
I I I If'
.,$ I' , I:¡'
w~ ¡ i ¡ I h¡i
.,~ I ; I ! lI¡i I: ¡ tI J
-C'" (::11
&.
. I, , I, 11 I
101 I o o PCPOIOlUJOIOIOI - '-. . __. ~ ~_. - -.......... ....~O.Q. .~.
¡,;;,, I ' : ( ... J ' ~*~ 0 . [{ :..... 0 IoL
~ t'~ci::~~ ~ i,L·lllr:oo~ ~~~ ::~:::~ ~
fc>\\ol~, ~ 0 0 'w /.<.Jolol ~Oloo 0 rcJõIfc" õ JõTõ 00 00 Ol~ ~+
~~, ~O., ,.g" ' ~ ~ ~ ol"d~oio ~
~o~~o ~ 7/ I' ~ {, 000 lèSooO~ ~ ~ 9 ~ l.o Ol~ ~ Z
10''- 9. t\I '0 O' ... 0 0= ~o 0] 1....0 0 :s
"r 0 ~ . , 0 "10 0 0 0/010 0 g f-9' 0 0 Fo 91'0 'õ' A.
w. i 0 0 0,0 0 - -.or ... to-
eJ>!?i or; 0 go 0 ~ 10 r:: 0 ~ 0 ! 0 !. - ><
~~ -V' ",,_. ~ OJ 0 0 0 ~
~ 0 '../....0 C IOloro 010 oIOlnlolnIOIðIo,^o~:õ1 '.' .~ 1 ~ 3: z
L- :-u '... J -IOI.".~, r1I_ '- 0
..... 0 is"' I o!/ If" J ~ ~O/aL"~..... ~O 0 0 O· U
r ð 0 0 . \;J«' '"" ~rrO~ ~
C IQ n- ~ [[IJ U ""(./"-" UlfI) J ~J '-(.J¿jO OlOfO t£.
~ 0 0 rõõft'~.. ~ ( .11 - <~ -',-V
o 0 ~\, Iãï§l \ =>z ' .. ¡-- . If)
og amn '" ~ l t' fli.. ' I ~ ....
0" 0 u1II1P.§ "I to .. / ~ ....
~ O· -'J3 ... \ I fI) 0z ~ / U _
~ Ô 0 ~ ~ ~I ~' W ~o a:./ VI 0
~ g ~ ~ mnn ~. .'-1i~ ~u ~ ( -g~ ~ ~ R:
- ·n t\ DIIDI... .4 ... J -0- . ~- 0 >
-*~~~ 'J3 f9 = . C\/ Ii·. · f ~ Ij;~
... ~ % o;c ~ DDID Y. 1-=, ._. /. _ _ 0 _ _:::~ J o.~ii
~ ij olO ooo~o 10 0 II .,,~. g..Q :¡ ~ ~~J
== ..-1),\0000 c%. (/j~_1 ... . \. ..... ~ ""'~ ,/ " ~
> . ~"'" ~~ cg: I " " ... O~ tl ~
00 i~~oroooo- i-¡..· tB° ;":.: .' \il! '\ .1 ~oo o.~:~o
O 0 0 0 0 .Q. U : 1~ \. - ~
,0 0 '. ". ",- ~ foa~ ~
~ ~ 0 0 0 ... t'I 0 0 0 "" '-..... .., ~ 70To ¡..:...
.) 0 0). Ài ~OU~ \0 0 I 'i ... ~ l! ~
~ ..0 . - 0 - iØ" ~ ..2-
UI"; . 0 0 0 0' I NOI!) 1 ., 0 0 0 ..g..
~ m..J ~ ~'ð-
~ O''<9'c'''- 0 ·0 0 C ð _
) O'~ !>.. ~~~ ~ 0 lor 0 0" a: ~ t= ~ 0
:» 0 ~ 0 'c,,<o '\ 0 0 ~ I,· 0: ole ~o 0 ~ / :] 0 g II
o ~ 0" 0 -~ . _ E I 0 0 0 0
~~" i..>\ /.:~o 0:'), 0 -§- 0010~0 i~ ~ / 00-00
~J6 ~'> .... ~ :1 ~? ~ 0 oìo'o'doE~ ~ I '-º- ~= ~
~~ / ./( rn. o·~ a 0 10" · '=" tJ f1 ~ ~ ~ 0
\~~ß~~i~~u 0 c 0 ~:%J ~J .\. ~ ~ ~ 0
\'\~ v~~{-~ -g ~,^,~oJ.2L 0 ~ (0 0 0
'\'-' ~~A- '" "d. 0 0 l.ó ~ \ 0 0
\ i ',\ ...,/--.' ~ \,y)Ji .. M r· 0' F\ r g ~'..~
\ 7 \ ... ~ ~ '\ "( 0 0(0 ( -_ í ^ ...0;...0 0
\ · \. ~'...~ \ ~ Lo..:..
\« .....¡ 0 õ 0
.. ..' ~ ... '- - ~ 0
Jj If" 'I Ë li-~' .~~. .l. ,.do ,..Q .'';,''~ã ~_
)j ~ · u ,/ ;., " 1\"~1" I 0 0 'I ~ ~o . ~-1r 0
V '."J, l\?\ " ~ ~o 0 ~=-_ .
~ u · ~ f )~ \--- - - ( !\C 0 0
~~- r-t "! r_Tn IS' . I I'i~ ~'-. -0 .
.. .
Sm
; ~ li~
.. .
d, I
. 1
c
~:;.....--
Jlli: II II: ¡ Ii H!!. .'
WI i, : ¡ :: '
'1,1 I I'~.
I,'i I ~ I· !
fill " Ii f ¡
i:
<
Q
t
o
~
I .
Z
=s
~.
...
><
&l.I
~
o
u
~o
~
,
'~'.~J '!II" ""1 'IJê I
s' 1:'1 ! I:' ' 'I
1,Iü, .Iül s .: . :
lii!1, iii' '-I~III In; 1-
.¡ sil !I!Jë~i1 , 'j
s.)!)!!: s, ' ~, ,
nIle!' II!" SCe j'
, III ..~ s
I"':=!I" IIJI , ir:1 :J
,11..'. 1",IIi"· GJ.!' p.
J!~lill "s1·'IIP' JI~f: I: '
, 1B1i!~n J;ë¡=n l:rà t i!'
Il"~'li!iI 1l:!lli!~J 1~1a1 .:d
plh!~' ·I¡;!m" 'I~I I~j
I
'!
. ~
I
,
I
I
,
I· It:.
1 II L I "< t
. 1 I·· ¡HI I: ,
L.III ed¡ ¡ªI: . '
I_ J III I! '.' ~ 111
ï:1I1I ;HU ~II i:!
III' .. J. mw ~
.. "n t ~!I f I
I 1 ~ ~ I i r,~.,
J ! ~ ~~ i æ I I
~ ~ ~! . ! t
I
ii ~ ¡i 51 Ii i
.¡
-...-.
Ii
B! ¡Þ!
¡Ii II
I
---l~
! III i I im
, ' I, 1, ,'!I
' , : I I ,.0,
U I II ! 1'1
,:: I: I ,
hi I II ,hll
. ¡ I~
: I ~ J
I
-+{--L-
I
J+--l-.
~Å-.wv.mNS I
Ii I j r--!
~
C!
..
@
c
.,3..
a~v 0 I
A.1Nno:>
r
i-
I
~¡
...~
D.
I0I.l
...
-
CI)
..
--...,----,-----.,-----
"-----
'.
.. ..
~ <
. -
i
-
~
~
~
¡ é
'" i'
él
i..
~1IY4 NOtMO:> =1
=~
n ¡",
.. !i ..
< æ<
> ...
§i:¡ :: ~
.I' ... 'I, - ~ .I~ i
L. --.J :~I~
i'
1 .. .. 1
~ "'~~
:¡... .: II
< - "-
~ _v tJ!!
w « ",,1
- ....... ...
ö!1ß < t:"! "tcr:
... "''''' .......
<~§ 5
81",
li=
~"'VI
au~~
:;U~è!I
I !
. .
'. .
J': :
..
: I'HI ! I
'Hi' ;
.... '. ,
hi i' ,t:
II . '=
f " · '.
, ,HI òl Ii i~
§! II
IIii .:E
..
I
---l
III
t:
ZIII
::>t:
t;! ...
0'" <
~... ~
"'>.: 0
...:1 ...
G$ E
. ;&.\z
, i::;
-1 HH
J
~I .nwv~ I1!)NS I
I J-t.. !
I
L-
~
q
.
a,v 0 I
'.
...
<
¡::
~
Q
III
...
III
=
~
<
...
~
¡
'"
.'
tfJ.
~L
~ //-:./;~ /////.<..-//. /.//.'/
~n. NOWWO:) =
I
í ~~. c:)0.' 'I' :-:... f9
- Y_ +- ,i
'/./ I/~
,. '" /, /
E)ØE)
~
.11
.H
.oz
L
,
o
"I
,
....,. ..
W
III
<
..
>-
t:
1.1
I
)
~ / :
;F~J ~
¡f~1 :
r;,;"
. , 8~~a-
~l
t/1 :
, .
~ '
B~
8'
...."
, L l!
, ...- JI
6. - .
....u
iJ,JeI)
zoz
oz<
uSE
...
<
¡::
~
Q
III
...
.
>-
..
~
<
...
~
¡
III
III
<'"
....
.1.1
«
.......
t:~
<II '"
I' III!!I r
15 ,: : i
: I , I ~
.... .1 ¡ . ! ,
ell I . IH' i~
.. t 'I ¡ fit
,; !III
..
...
:!
.
...
I f
I .-
,:-
tt
"''''
...'"
. ..r "'...
. ......
t
L t:!P
g Z ~
r--- I.· To
I ::J =
I I >
~Z
ß 1 I 0<
......
c I ' ~Q.
. I
eS C . I &&olD!:
...8 " I ' .. "'0
il 1 ! '¡ CJo
L___ ¡ . ~¡t
iT ... ~
..- -
I Z ~
! I ::J
· . >
! t D!:
! I oz
/ I. "'0
: I ~-
¡ I u.a'"
I. ...<
: I CJ>
¡ I Z&&ol
- ...
II ~&&oI
.i..¡
-Ii
II
--~~
_J 4-
, .
I
~, II
· I
\ · !
\ I:
\ ~ II
\ \ I
\ · I
I!
\ I ¡
\
1 I
II
¡ -11
!
I -1-..L
~.¡
YJ.o._ "n1IAnoII )
8JSnOt.1tfMO~ ØØ)I .
~ '"
,', ~
~
Ij. -::~ [
~: .. <
1= 'If z
~
t::
i ~ ~
Ii
I ~
.
.. -
, . ~~
..
-. . .
. '.
.~! ..... - j ,-.
..
~m il :t
0
.
n '1
81
~I
CII_
j r
I
I
I --,
I
I r------ I
I I
I I
I I I
I I
Ii I I
I I
) I.. I I
I I
, Ii I
.: I ~-_..
, , 4~
. 1 . CI I
,
! I , ,
I ~
I
L_____
I
, ..J
... l
I->~
;r
.. œ ...._-~ [
-
Y.LOS_~·
"~ò.íwa)j
i: i. m
I:: z
I! :5
0.
i !c § ~
e~ cl
.c
.~
C
. a:
!
~;
~i i¡ ..
-'
c
U
.
II
II
-jl
r--
,
1
1
.
I --,
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I Ii I
~' I I
, I
, ...
) J CI.. , I
.., C" __.J
11:'
¡ ", cli: -J
, , CI W
) . , , >
I ~ W
" I -J
a:
-------- ( ~
, 0
,
J -J
~
I.:>~:
.:::=:: ]
I~[I-·_·:~ [
- -
..J
I~ 8 z
Ii i I ~
i
Ie
II~ :! Ii!
~
¡ :
.
I
~ i il
I I,!
~ ~ ~i
~ i
~------
I
I
I
I r-------
; I
, I
I
ÌD I III.. I L..,
.. I!
~-------, . C.. I ,
11:: , \.
I· ~.. I
1 )
I I ~
,
¡.J
~[!] I
I ~
L._______ I
J -1¡:
.....l.
~-?
~tI~(
--\-
n~ 'rnIA~ }
nenoHNMO.1.11HÐ1 .
,. ,. All
.0IIII
(;:)
- . --. -- ---_.
!Z
o
:1=
:iC.
ti
id
~.
a:
:11.0.
\.»".
.. . ~ ,
, I. . .
:>UI Sé.J¡'eIJOSS\j adOd
{~II[:==: ~;){
.t6/t/u
Y.LOnNNIII '3"IAJlOI( ]
S3SnOHNMO~WG)( .
z
o
~
~
&II
&II
Q
'ëi)
cot
I:
yoo
.
1Þ8[B
-I
yoo
.
'!
p~
Š
~¡
O~
, .m
l_ .
\$o~
=
...
~~
e...
IIC<
~...
IIC~
f
II~ Iii I '
,.. I I
'HI
Itr,
(,.1
_"I
Il'jl
f I'
'II
. !II
I. P
I: II I~
.~
II.
.~ .
I
~
I
:.
..
:,
.
f
.:=
"it
"''''
.. '"
"'..
.. .. -
c~
Zi
:J
>
I¥Z
0<
......
~D.
wca=
"'0
~o
~...
~ ....
!:: ~
Z i
:J
>-
ca=
Oz
"'0
~-
w'"
G<
z~
_ ..a
~w
..-
8
.,
!i
r---: .:
II :.
. I :,
IS .
c I I:'
~ 11 :'.
1.1 ~.
L '..J<
L
d·
-¡I
Z!r
O~
"
~=
'<
>
w
...
w
!ž
o
.ca=
....
. --iT
Ii iT
II' II
I II
II
II
II
I J
11
-H
II
--·H
-tt
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
II -
i II
! -':'1t
i..!
00
-'i.~
... ,- .~. ....
, .,!.
I I II"
h-j - I
111:1 I I I",
Iii ,I -I HI· I
.. II d I' I I
r I "I· --,
taU -~, ~
. ..
rlli I :i~il-'-:
Ie" ~~þ ~
i ,!.. I i'111 ,¡,
ï lIilih!9 !¡'Ui - - j'
I Ii ikl -
IIn 51 ! flit :
! I"I~ ~
I I I .r.li i
I, II .
..11 ..
II .
lid II II I !
1_ iii I I; I
~
o
III i
~~ I ~~
~~ c~
_ .ii æï: ª 1:»-
~¡ ~ f~ i §!::
'. . ., ."
.. ¡. 'II I:)~
:! \.:iIi." 1
_I .... \' ,\ ,,'" -' "~,,, ,I!!:i J \. ~r I t
_ ~ ,\ ,_'_,", T- 7..!::. L
.__. T~--=S:'!¡'-~- ~-WL-" \. 0C·"S"·
T """'" ' .....;-. ~ - ' .~ ' "
~~ :::=" "'" .. ',.r -3:" -" "
n,,=-, itIf ...-="". ;,:_~-?'~:-T X.. . !.~
I~ ....-. 7 _II' ......~ --
= __ " .... f -..:.
, I oj i~ . · 11-1 ~~
~ _I~I' ! , Þ . i 4Jß' -, ':;;T1.I · .... I) ~¡I
~, n' #"'j : II' ~þ~~ j --/ Q Cî!~ I ii
i...J . ) . I > if <... - I \ "--
; ", / v v Ii! 'VJ ~ I - I )1 r-
.. ' ¡,' 1// I II
~I,.'l I I,£: ,I'--. .." . (:.... II
'T T _. ., : I I L;¡ L
E r - V: Ii -
:1 / ~ - '\ \ î v '
~ ,,~ ,.., I L
ilJl' -¥ . 'I I I I r-,
- ~ .. ¡".." (! (
1\1 f .. - "'T ~- -,,\ ":..:.' '~JJ: / I
\1 ..' '- ,1ì ~ ' )
,I _ t:L :. :i~~ij,:;þI
j_\!) ./~...'(. ::'__ . ' . , '/,I/.~V/'f~/
\ ,_< ~,_ '1/./""/ l'il//
~~-r---:-_':--- ,'-.. - - ~~~~~ / ~////~~//.
..../ ~~"":::::--il- -::-- )/~~ /~;:;:ø~ ,/ý'/}/
./ i I) - -::::- ' ..'/' ///.//..;;/,~f//
~~ ..-~ ____ o'/ /.' ,/.~' / /
. ~"./ ('...-----/" ...-;::/;//////21 / /. /
~.!' '----""....1 ~/~ /////:2/// 04'~I~/ //
I!;; ~' ~ ~~-~-~ // / ,// /
----------- / / / /;
...---"/- '?<:.~ _-----...- /. /1 'ell
(~~//.:/"'-- ~_~_---~./,// /t~ /'
\ ,'i. /~,.:::::-.=-.=--=--=...-- /, 1/
1%'/ /,/'/ % -:..>-----= -:- - -- - ~~<' // / ./
) II' ,/ / :.-;:;-: ;¡: ~ - ~ - : (/.,/ h
//IVr¡/;/o//jf/þ ¡;;/ç"":==--=---=- ~.., --:::..~~P
I !. / / ," ~- ../~-:-;2--"
~ /I '" ., I I ~
/ / I I I I l / \. '--- ' ¡I\ ! ' -~ 'i:
ß V'- \\1 I V":- .~.'"
///, i ) ;) \! \ I)¡!~ ',y
/' / /' . . I II I I"
, / / ) ~ / ,. --(
,r~ . :I:n ./ /-
<.; /
'-' ../
!
r
,
I
N
Co) ,
-
-
IJ J. '
"IIJIIIII1J1dfJ¡" 'I j j ,
i ~:J lììl ulUlllilllu I J j
51 ¡:I'dUo.. ..nah.I~.. \, I
=; JJI,I I. IJ IJ ,. ~
I JIIuJllmllbllhtUill1 ! I
.i¡lll.i.h~lIlii~ I I I
.....d! I I :-.
III
I
ie'
II I)J' I :
r ; ,11,.1111 '"'' ·
': : -. I. 1 1'.11' ) '"
I' I 111E IIJ A 0 1 J
II i II I: l!!rll"'· .
II I I' fl J tJ t i I
~I~ : !il"nUlbUI Ii J1
. "
, r
II ! II!I !I ~ili 1I1I ilIiP~ II
111 !¡m¡ ~I 111111 f¡III~~ II
. .. . .
, I ·
IH'llqi~ j']f~!,HiiU i If I' -,
¡U,il'i,II!,llllii,tlli ,dlllUl tl~iI HIli it I
,II i It ,1"1 I ¡ I"l I¡lt. IIII I
!lIiMdll~ liii¡Udi!t'¡ tIJt'liitf!IIII'1
. .. J. ... J" 11 I .1
"'
.
.
If ., r·
II 'I' "If 'itU. oj
~ Inlh mi;lmJ!lfl'~i!
ill t!)tll HI'lhllt!lUIIJ1!
Ihhlll' ~ ;lttl"I~niIUII!(1
. : " '.' ullJlI -
HI ~J J I- -
j1lit: IlltlllP ·
.J'
lId Iii I,·t J. II '1
r' .'H'.
I I·. I ¡¡¡nil! it JIJuF
---.... ,Ii :
" ·1· IIUI{I! II Hlml ·
, . HI} ·
I I: ;
·
§ rll 1:liJ I ~
I . I . !!!ì N
'" 5 I'I! ,
gen I aP'
- - -'" en " N
-1= ... ~!ë i oJ f'll
ö _ _ ~ Ii
.....f___ :it¡ I '" fa I
11;'" 0
:i!iJ ;
.
:111' . i
¡II! i
!ilIJ I
i IH
f'¡~1'
í;' ~ i
_ r.',
llal i
;91 ~ &
..
.
"'.=
~ !sl
I lit
I ¡J
,,-I
,-
.. U
~ r'
t!
..
Ii
% i
I ~
i t
¡
-.--..---
--..--.-
-----
-.-...--.-
---....-...
.....---.
M_
--
~
-:;;.::~~
. ~r-;q _..
. } ....-.:
.. -~
M_
=:; 1...~-:::
--
., .. .. - .. .. - i .
";S :)i;". - - ~
- -
.' ~~ .. - -
.,. ... - - IX
E
-Ii
!. !
II;
I
: I
..-.....-
..-.......
~~II
.: II
~
L~ .L_
R. L.S. 438
i~
. - -- ----"
-ï
I
I
5
'0)
'I
to"
o
~
CURRENT KEHR PROPjATY
5.~...ac I ~.";:\.,,-. tI'"
¡ . ~~
"..
.04'..~
III UI (lw) CJ)",
41 .. 'Wfl
0:':._ _J~
::. (17) _ .
.. ~ CJ)
H....
.....
,
I ill'
,:
I I",
I-
I ;
í~
, ~
I !
, I
I~
.--~~ I'
- - -r::
.~ ."'~..
.
Ion
01)
aÕ
~
...
LR
·f/'
.,~:·'I
...",'\; , :
I
;
."
y.1I~ 0"
~ ~ -/},'
-~~~
... 01 .&..
i ,~:C"E...
:¡ <15
PARK
(z.~)
37
.....7
¿j'
~
~
~
p
~ i: 4-. '2..5 o...c...
'~'"
--~~~
+~~
...... .'
_.~-
..¡~ --
..
q~~J
OG
~I
01
~l
I
I
I
~
.-1
!
~
:z.
,
.!i~ ~C'
(ZA) '\.~'&'\ 2
o .-
---.:-~"l ~ 5. Sf & ..--
2..ìO.5\
<,)
0-------1
- - -- ---
--. () ---
...
,"A3~c
¡ROSEVILLE
~ITE
I
I
Possible Land Use Gui··
/......../
.j'>
t \":too' /.&::Ó;:C;'
( ) .../¡;'!~~
/;ç;«' /- ';Þ.J- '\ d¿.
'./ ~~ v~ ?
~. <?~ <l-<~/BEHR
~4': cP Q.'f:.,5"'/ PARKVIEW
..,
II ¡HI .. I
fþ '"
.", ~
"'en Ih'
t' .J
0"" II' , ..0
-I- h-j I
- - De~ III, Ú
. ... ~I- , ...
- - acen {IiI J¡í~
-:r= ... ~.", fll
- - - iii.
... ~--
,
~",::"",-.-_.__...,..'
/. . ~.'
...
./
_. ,~-4-'- ..,~.:-
~~. (. ,'.:
U-~-~cli-=t~."'~·t---1-4 -+]'1 :;'Q\¡,
: R !,' . I . - ... ¡
~ :,.> t: ¡ .!~ .¡. : . \r:f oJ. T
~
Jo'
D
~
I,
,
I
L-.-, -
~.
I . .
i
r-~- . ,
--¡ I'
L,
f· -
,
f.i
2S
f~
o
I
, ,
\
I
1
h
- , .
\
\
I
t
.,;.;
~ -:-:
8 fr"
..
00
Ii ~:
..
I-
en
De
It
"
De::
8 f
Ii S
...
o
z
o
u
.",
en
"
c
ca
-
Q.
...
~ 0
o 0
u~ 0-. ¡¡:
!~ ar=.
~~ ct:-a
~i CD
~8;¡:
..1.0 ._
C) = -a
z·
ë;; 0
:: =æ
~
-
;=
CD
Z
~
>
o
=
<
'"
0111
0",
-....
CII:<
~....
~1íI
Q.
-- .. - -------.-
-_.._.._~--- -..'-
r-
-~".b
I L-~j
I r~ - --~~--~j
I~ l
I .
L..
E
..g..
- ~.
;U
..1:1..
{
I ;
i
i
n_ ____~
'J')
I,J
Its'
I,·J
,,'
I ~_.
IIII
"
f'I'
h J
t I
"--'.
" :> ..
....
ú
. ...
hí~
\ ¡ \
L-__-_~ L_
OV01l
~----------~
I
hr
i
¡
, ;:
\;
{
1
I
I
!
!
\.
,--
,.----
,
\
'--
'---
"----
..-..
(. Tot" 1
A-~~J I
.!!...
Ii .
..
.!!...L
IID~
.5! J
...
-~~
='
1-
æ~:
Q.·-i
-.-
II
~ë!
I I
J !
L
AJ.NOO:>
"h
~i ~ i¡~~
I z ã:
:s C\I
\: ~ Ø)
II !;¡ ~
! : ~ 'tJ
i J e CD
'I ~ ==
\ - 'tJ
I I' ~~::I~ ~
: 0>-
( ~ CII: ........
. 0 .-.
I'· ~.... ~
. 0111 -
i I ~a~ 5
I S~i! ()W'
\ all 111111
I . CD
) ¡.J a:
~,
/
f
/
~/ :
\
I
..:J
C"~--ì ¡
i~~
nnr
I ; :
! f
i =1
iif 1- I
":.0..
I
I
I
E
11:11
- ...
l1J
..1:1..
1-
E-
o
11011
- ...
lID" 0
-!J~
!
æ\
It
E
o
11011
-...
-"J
..1:1..
~-~·=·l .-. --J-
-. -.-
~!~§:~lJ·
WJ.OSil....... ·¡nIAilSOII
-
r. >~.,¡......l..:.LI.;.l~ " '-MO'
t..]:JI.:·~~t11~~!~r1·~!J ~ ¡
S3SnOHNI.\OJ. ~)
~~
~=
0..
..
~ \ r
~\ ~ ;t.
:> "Pti "0:)
......
. ~::i:i:i ..- i -
-9 ~
......0. "-
..... :c :i
~4I.~~ ... -.
..-0- 0:.
-. -0: .
:
.
<
...
<
a
:!!---- i
___"0
co....·...
....ft.
.......
iiil~ j.; i
c.u... §!
§ ...
......:! 9 ~~
·
..
·
·
~I
a.
II~
o
¡C.
r-
!~
-
¡
.
=1
!e
...
c
œ
(þ¡ -
0.
-
.l:
u a CI)
. ~ I ~ z ~
~- :J It)
a.. CO
UJ
. l- e»
~ . ëñ
:: ,..
-.
\
rUfUrt- fWVJl\) ~mHl'DL
c;
.
(
., ':?~T(j\ Pf
~.
.....
..
- ,,..t!!. 'to .:
,
-:
:10
~. KIQ' 'co·
i i
'" æ-n 1ft
~~ ~
~.
I && -.. ..
" ~~
or.
~
-
, ::@
'!Go4 ~"!."
---,-~4'3 .
...-:~.....
Park ~p.
~,'
I a..c:.~. _.....ø"
" ~/
~ ~ctl! ø~"v
:t
1ft ,I
w, / I
Jl il/Ç, VIL\.Ac;.\: OF .c"Cv".\.~. PAIt....
..: .,~.
- ...t' 4'
..fI ......
l.e .:':ø
':'" ;~
,~. .-
_,,"4-.
"-. f
-
- .
~
I)
CP
Ó _-
- .....
,....
--".
-
--
~'i~
0'
'\
i
()
Of.
....
~.
.
. ,.
.:..~"
.1"\
.:- \~
-.,
"
-
~
,
.....
...
~-
.~.....-........~~o..............t---4
_ _ _ _ _ 4~:;;
----
--~
. -,ü>r~:
__1 . John Salverda
:~ ~..._.:.
.
2 Ed Salverda
~~.~".Jphl1.B~ ".'
; .'ói"~ ; ·
~ -¡:a' Salver :
EXHIBIT B
(
~
.
..
I
I
I
. ......:
", '
- -
.
~H~Lt ~flll("~ t\DMff::=r
t'Uflt-~
J.
.
..
..
Exhibit from
1985 Case
Show~ng Suggested
Roadway Extension,
...
RIa JOP1Cl
PLAlDfING RBPORT
CASE NUMBER:
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS:
PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
DATE:
2471
Parkridqe Development Corp.
PUD General Development Plan Approval
& Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Memo on siqn Ordinance Discussion
Roseville Planninq Commission, City Council,
and Staff
Philip Carlson, AICP
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC.
9 December 1992
...
o
C\/
~
ðir
1IIii
:--1
,... 81~
en ~
E o~
. 8-
a> -~
~
_ c 0
o -
"'_ ::E
,,, . -
-a.!!
C e·
A\ e"
w oi C'i
gu. 0)
~ cO)
11m 1:1.5 -
moSS ~
cc..~
._ ¡. CD
C -= .Q
KBKORANDUK
DATE:
9 December 1992
TO:
Roseville Planning commission
FROM:
Philip Carlson, Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban
RE:
sign Ordinance Discussion
We are hoping to address a number of issues tonight related to our
ongoing discussion of the Sign Ordinance. ·Some are old issues,
some are new. Some will require Planning Commission action, some
are for informational purposes only.
Seasonal Sians 'Banners. Attached is our two-page memorandum of
7/20/92. This memo summarizes the proposals for dealing with
temporary signs and special events signs, including seasonal signs
and banners, flags, and grand opening decorations. These
suggestions were not included in the recent amendments to the
Code, at the request of the City Council, who wanted churches and
others to have another opportunity to express their wishes before
action was taken. The Planning Commission has already passed this
material on to the city Council after considerable discussion and
a recommendation, but Chairman DeBenedet has asked us to review
the options and summarized the standards again since some of the
issues are controversial. Area churches have been notified of the
discussion taking place tonight and we expect some representatives
to come and comment. The city Council will take up the issue again
at their January 21 work session, and church representatives will
be invited to that session as well.
Wall Sianaae for Multi-Tenant Buildinas. Attached are three
drawings illustrating different wall signage situations for a
multi-tenant commercial or industrial building. The size
standards for signage are based on the area of the building facade
facing the street frontage, and reveal a situation we had not
anticipated in our earlier discussions:
The first sketch, Corner Lot, shows a typical strip center
building on a corner lot (two street frontages) with various
signs on a sign band and the new Code standards on the lower
part of the page. The standards are reasonable for this
arrangement.
sign ordinance Discussion 12/9/92
page 2
The second sketch, Interior Lot (Long Frontage), shows a
similar building on an interior lot (only one street
frontage). Again the standards should work fine.
The third sketch, Interior Lot (Short Frontage), shows a
similar building on an interior lot, but with narrow street
frontage. In this situation, tenants on the long side of the
building would be at a disadvantage in identifying their
businesses, because the short facade facing the street would
not afford very much signage based on the formula in the
Code. Furthermore, with the Code standards placing a limit on
the amount of signage for the whole building, a tenant in a
multi-tenant building wishing to change or add signage would
need to know the amount of signage on all other tenant
spaces. We believe this is an unreasonable expectation for an
individual tenant. An option is that individual tenants be
allowed to erect signage on their facade equal to half the
percentage allowed for a street frontage in that District, or
30 square feet, whichever is greater. In the B-1, B-1B, and
I Districts, this would be half of 7%, or 3.5%; in the other
B Districts and the SC District, it would be half of 10%, or
5%. This approach makes the process easier for a tenant and
easier for the City to administer.
Another approach would be a Master or Common Signage Plan
(see attached summary) required of every commercial or
industrial building. This concept was discussed previously,
but not passed on as part of the recommendations to the city
Council. This would put the burden on the building owner to
prepare a plan showing the location, size, design, and
materials of all signage on a building. An individual tenant
would then have to conform to the plan that is approved and
on file with the city. This would be stricter and involve
more city administration and record keeping, but would result
in more attractive and standardized signage for multi-tenant
buildings. Several of the city's larger shopping centers have
such plans in place as part of a Special Use Permit or PUD
approval.
window sionaqe in Glass Buildinos. The recently passed amendments
retain the standard for window signage at 25% of the window area.
This is reasonable for modest-sized window areas, but there may be
a case where a building is substantially glass - almost all
window. In this case, the 25% window signage allowance would far
exceed the 10% allowed for other wall signage, and would continue
the "clutter" we have been trying to curb. One option that was
considered in our earlier discussions was to include window
signage in the overall formula for wall signage. This idea was
rejected in favor of the existing 25% rule. This would indicate
that some additional window signage above the wall signage
sign Ordinance Discussion 12/9/92
Page 3
percentage is acceptable, but the extreme case of glass buildings
was not considered.
The attached drawings show this 25% rule in practice (25% Rule, No
Limit) in three examples, assuming 10% standard wall signage: a
building with very little windows, a building with a modest amount
of windows, and a building facade almost entirely composed of
glass. Clearly, the bottom drawing would not be an acceptable
situation.
The next drawing (25% Rule, Limited to Half) illustrates an option
to the unlimited 25% rule: allowing window signage to be 25% of
the window area, but only up to an area equal to half the
allowable wall signage for the building. This would place a
reasonable cap on the total amount of windów signage, but would
still allow a building to have its maximum allowable wall signage
plus some window signage. It would also discourage large amounts
of window signage in lieu of wall signage, since window signage
would be limited to half the wall signage allowance. This would
encourage putting at least some of a building's allowable signage
in wall signage, which would be more permanent and probably more
attractive than temporary window signage, which typically are made
of paper or thin plastic. Ordinance language to implement this
idea might be as follows:
14.190.
window Siqns.
Signs placed inside a building for the purpose of viewing
from the exterior of less than 36 inches from a window area
shall not occupy more than 25% or the window area from which
they are viewed, nor more than one half the area allowed by
this Code for wall signage on the building facade, and shall
not block the visibility into the building from a public
street to the clerk or cashier's area.
Leqa1 Issues. Finally, we have attached a copy of our recent
letter to city Attorney Bob Bell aSking for clarification on
certain issues related to Roseville's sign Ordinance. As noted in
the letter, some recent court cases have raised questions about
billboards, removal of non-conforming signs, and the display of
flags. Summaries of the court cases are attached to the letter. We
hope to have Attorney Bell's comments in time for the meeting.
Date:
steven D. Gatlin, Public Works Director
REVIEW OF AL KEHR DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR
December 8, 1992
or
To:
Rick Jopke, Assistant Community Development
From:
RE:
Engineering and Public Works staff have reviewed plans recently
submitted by A1 Kehr and his engineer and architect for his
proposed Parkridge Development project. We assume that at this
point the plans are preliminary in nature and that engineering
staff would have an opportunity to review and approve all final
plans prior to the issuance of any permits for this project.
with this assumption in mind, we would make several comments
regarding the plans submitted and suggest they be transmitted to
Mr. Kehr and his engineer for follow-up modifications.
1. Drainage
The plan submitted by Mr. Kehr and his engineer includes an
on-site ponding area for the property to comply with city
requirements. This pond would provide on-site storage for
increased runoff such that the post-development rate would
not exceed the pre-development rate.
However, Mr. Kehr has indicated that this alternative is not
acceptable to him in that it ruins the aesthetics of his
project. He has asked the city to explore other alternates
for off-site, regional ponding facilities that would be
built as a public project and benefiting properties
assessed. Mr. Kehr has submitted a petition for public
improvement which would initiate an engineering
investigation by Rosevi11e staff of this concept.
The petition will be reviewed by the City Council and a
feasibility study may be ordered. However, in a preliminary
manner, we have reviewed the concept of regional ponding
and, based on 'submittals by Mr. Kehr, would make the
following comments:
a. The submitted plan includes the concept of locating a
regional treatment pond on part of the city's leaf site.
This concept would involve loss of approximately 25,000
square feet of usable space from the present leaf site.
Page 2
Rick Jopke
December 8, 1992
This is unacceptable. Projection shows that the entire
area is needed for the continued leaf operation. To re-
orient the site is not practical. For this reason, an
alternate location must be sought for the regional pond.
This could be on the developer's property or adjacent
park property along Dale street.
b. storm water runoff was calculated by the developer's
engineer as a percentage of the drainage area. Instead
of this analysis technique, runoff contributions should
be analyzed based on volume of runoff not percent of
. area. Tributary areas must be weighted to indicate type
of development and runoff factors. The final
feasibility report for drainage improvements will
include this concept.
c. The internal drainage scheme shows direct surface runoff
off from the streets. This type of drainage does not
work well and should not be allowed if it is considered
that the streets in the future would be public. Instead
the street design should be redone with internal catch
basins and a storm sewer system.
2. street design
a. If the streets are contemplated for future public
conveyance, a minimum of 50 feet of right-of-way should
be dedicated at this time. This will necessitate
variances for the proposed building locations.
b. Roseville minimum street standards must be used for the
design of streets including our typical section.
c. If the streets are to become public, snow removal in the
future would be extremely difficult because of minimal
boulevard snow storage. For this reason, we recommend
that the concept of conveying the streets to the city
not be explored.
3. utility construction
a. The specifications prepared by the developer's engineer
are in conflict. They refer to the use of the city
standard specifications for utility system construction.
However, several of the items detailed in the plans are
substandard under our specification and conflict. In
all cases, the utilities must be built to city
standards. It is suggested in this case that the
utilities be built to city standards and conveyed to the
Page 3
Rick Jopke
December 8, 1992
city for ownership and maintenance. This will prevent
confusing situations in the future regarding
responsibility for watermain breaks, sewer backups, etc.
b. The watermain is shown in the plan as being looped on
itself to provide a source of supply from two directions
but off the same main. It is suggested that the
watermain be looped and a separate connection provided
to the 12" main within the County Road C right-of-way.
One of the 6" connections to the south could then be
eliminated.
c.
It is suggested
after review by
superintendent.
green areas and
that additional hydrants be located
the fire marshal and utility
Also, all water shutoffs should be in
not in driving surfaces.
In summary, the drainage, street, and utility plans for this
project need additional review and modifications prior to
construction. We have met with the developer and his engineer
once to discuss the plans in concept form but our comments have
not been transmitted. I would suggest that this memo be sent to
them for their review and comment.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 8, 1992
TO: Craig A. Waldron
FROM: Rick Jopke
SUBJECT: Al Kehr/Parkridge Development Submittal
As you are aware, Al Kehr submitted an application for general
concept plan (PUD) approval by the required October 27, 1992
deadline for review by the Planning Commission in December. On
10-28-92, in accordance with our review process, the Development
Review Committee completed a completeness review of the
aforementioned application. As noted in the 10-28-92 Planning
Office Hours, all items of the PUD submission were provided
except the following:
1. A staging plan.
2 . A si te plan and landscape plan showing neighboring houses
across County Road C and existing landscaping.
3. Architectural building elevations for the front of the one
story units and the side of the two story units.
On or about 11-20-92, Mr. Kehr provided a drawing showing the
proposed development in relation to the houses on surrounding
lots and the missing architectural building elevations. The 11-
20-92 submittal did not contain information on existing
landscaping on the yards but Mr. Kehr indicated that he has
photographs which he would present at the Planning ..commission
meeting which would show the existing landscaping. \
On 11-25-92, the Development Review Committee completed its
substantive review. During this review, the following concerns
and inadequacies were noted:
1. Basic land use question concerning whether townhouses are
appropriate at that location. There are adjacent properties
that are similarly si tuated and future access is also a
concern.
2. There are details relating to drainage and storm ponding
which have not been resolved.
3 . There is inadequate landscaping on the east and west lot
lines, at each unit entry, and along the south at the park
edge. It was also noted that trees were shown planted on
the additional dedicated right-of-way for County Road C.
4. There were inadequate setbacks noted on the northwest corner
where two units face an existing garage fifteen feet away.
5. Fire hydrant, fire lanes, and fire hydrant maintenance need
to be addressed.
It should also be noted that because of the absence of Karl Keel,
¡
,
i
that Mr. Kehr was working with steve Gatlin to resolve drainage ~
and ponding issues separately and the Development Review
Committee was not included in those discussions.
Based on the above findings noted at the November 25, 1992
Development Review Committee, Phil Carlson prepared the draft
staff report. As indicated, Phil did not discuss these findings
with Mr. Kehr before writing the draft report.
Subsequent to the 11-25-92 Development Review Committee meeting
and while Phil was in the process of finalizing the staff report,
Mr. Kehr dropped in unannounced over the noon hour on a Wednesday
and indicated to Phil that they were making changes to the plans
which would eliminate a unit and change the type of units being
proposed. Phil mentioned to Mr. Kehr and subsequently to Jerry
Perkins, the archi tect working on the proj ect, that we needed
more detail to review these proposed changes and that this could
possibly cause the Planning Commission to delay action on the
proposal.
On 12-8-92, I received the attached memo from steve Gatlin
outlining the Engineering concerns about the proposed project
relating to streets, utili ties, and drainage which need to be
resol ved prior to construction. In the memo, Mr. Gatlin notes
the following:
1. Mr. Kehr has obj ected to onsi te ponding and has asked the
city to explore other alternatives for off-site regional
ponding facilities.
2. Mr. Gatlin notes that the initial site on the leaf dump
parcel is unacceptable and other sites will need to be
explored.
3. Mr. Gatlin also has concerns about the method which the
developer's engineer calculated run off and also noted the
need for internal catch basins and storm water systems on
the site.
4. Mr. Gatlin also raised issues concerning the fact that the
proposed streets would not meet City specs if they are to be
conveyed to the public in the future as well as there being
inadequate space for snow storage.
5. Mr. Gatlin also notes that there are some problems with the
utility plans relating to them not meeting City specs,
concerns about how the water main is being looped and the
need for additional hydrants.
Mr. Gatlin has met with the developer and discussed the plans and
concepts but detailed comments have not been transmitted. I will
send a copy of Mr. Gatlin's memo to Al Kehr for his information.
In summary, the following questions and issues· have not been
resolved:
1. No information on staging has been submitted.
2 . Unresolved ponding, drainage, street, and util i ty issues.
If on-site ponding is required, it has a major impact on the
site plan.
3. Unresolved landscape issues.
4. Inadequate setbacks in the northwest corner.
5. Land use and access questions from previous proposal have
not been resolved (i. e. should an enclave of townhouse
surrounded by single family homes be allowed and should
access to Dale street be provided.
/::
. /'
ROSEVILLE PLANNING OFFICE HOURS
10/28/92
4
ComDleteness Review for December 9 Planninq Commission Meeting:
2471/Al Kehr, Park Ridqe Development PUD (Townhouses)
* All items on the PUD submission list have been provided
except:
()'v( - staging of the PUD is unclear. We will contact Mr.
\~Kehr or his architect to clarify.
~ ~- . . te Plan and Landscape Plan need ing
~t houses across county Road C and the existing landscapin
\] ose yards, since Mr. Kehr has ted~ hat
., ~~. Q existing landscaping will provide some of the scr eniY;kOt
\~e,v ll'~ to his project. haf~OfAM
(\ 1tØ1~[ -. Architectural building elevations are needed of ~the ,)~
\~\ Ù.1,Q front of the one-story uni ts and the side of the , ~t.o
two-story units.
I
/ * Even though most details have been provided for this
" project, the basic question of the appropriateness of this
land use in this location needs to be a~ed. W~~ asked
Mr. Kehr to show on an area map th ther proper~ he is
interested in purchasing, so that the neigh l-AJ111 the city
could see clearly the extent of the land use ange Mr. Kehr
is hoping to develop.
S~QWk Q~
(tr/« pl~ 11'1.ð
,; ~sbd ~ 1ke *~., ~.ç 1]-4
f~ ~ '(ler~;"'.. oJ ~QF A~c.
~FtØ~ ~~.
1¿
DAl-ILGREN::
SHARDLØW:f
AND :UBAN'~
l:\COr-j'OR..\ Tl D
CONSULTING PLANNERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH
SUITE 210
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
612·339·3300
7 December 1992
Craig Waldron
Community Development Dept.
Roseville City Hall
RE: AI Kehr's Parkridge Estates Devt.
Craig:
Enclosed are copies of my Office Hours memos for 10/28/92 and 11/25/92 concerning AI Kehr's
project, with my notes on what submission items were discussed. Call ü you have more questions.
~:~
.~7
ROSEVILLE PLANNING OFFICE HOURS
11/25/92
2
building near the corner of Lydia and snelling for student housing
and develop another lot further south for a motel. The Benjamin's
restaurant property at Snelling and County Road C-2 is not part of
the plan at this time, nor is the gas station at Snelling and
Lydia.
Northwestern wants to present the ideas to the planning Commission
as a PUD Sketch review at the December 9 meeting. We will meet
with them on December 10 to discuss what items will be needed for
full PUD submission for the January 13 Planning Commission meeting.
The basic issues involved will include overall density (over 40
units/acre), the height (7 stories for one of the buildings), and
the image and buffering to the neighborhood to the west. All of
these can be addressed within the PUD process, assuming a
comparison with the R-7 District standards (no height limit, up to
25 units/acre).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DeveloDment Review for December 9 Plannina commission:
File 2471
Al Kehr/Parkridae DeveloDment
(
.-\1 r.~~L ~ I d"SVV9Jed ~ itÐJA$
'd'> ¡ rpred-to Wvl-k. w:Y .
11v.."J~~. I J,d ~J t~l~
to A \ ~hY â~ 1i.}, kft*t
Lvh'1ìw¡ 1kl'tpo.1. --þ
'J (
/-
,II -
/
/
/
(
I
I
29 units of townhouses on private streets.
Basic land use question: are townhouses appropriate in this
location? Adjacent properties are similarly situated; future
access is a concern.
Additional ROW, 10' on County Road C shown on plan.
28'-wide internal streets OK. ~a C~~
storm Ponding: internal pondi shown on plan; some
discussions about off-site pondin9 improvements in Central
Park instead. '
Landscaping: inadequate on east and west lot lines, inadequate
at each unit entry, more needed to the south at park edge.
Trees shown planted on new CR CROW.
NW corner: two s face existin 15' away, more
setback needed.
Fire hydrant locations, fire lanes, FH needs to be
addressed.
~~~pl~
slIhw.;fM '5b~ 11'10.
1é
To:
Rick Jopke, Assistant community Development
or
From: steven D. Gatlin, Public Works Director
RE: REVIEW OF AL IŒHR DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR
Date: December 8, 1992
Engineering and Public Works staff have reviewed plans recently
submitted by Al Kehr and his engineer and architect for his
proposed Parkridge Development project. We assume that at this
point the plans are preliminary in nature and that engineering
staff would have an opportunity to review and approve all final
plans prior to the issuance of any permits for this project.
with this assumption in mind, we would make several comments
regarding the plans submitted and suggest they be transmitted to
Mr. Kehr and his engineer for follow-up modifications.
1. Drainage
The plan submitted by Mr. Kehr and his engineer includes an
on-site ponding area for the property to comply with city
requirements. This pond would provide on-site storage for
increased runoff such that the post-development rate would
not exceed the pre-development rate.
However, Mr. Kehr has indicated that this alternative is not
acceptable to him in that it ruins the aesthetics of his
project. He has asked the city to explore other alternates
for off-site, regional ponding facilities that would be
built as a public project and benefiting properties
assessed. Mr. Kehr has submitted a petition for public
improvement which would initiate an engineering
investigation by Rosevil1e staff of this concept.
The petition will be reviewed by the City council and a
feasibility study may be ordered. However, in a preliminary
manner, we have reviewed the concept of regional ponding
and, based on 'submittals by Mr. Kehr, would make the
following comments:
a. The submitted plan includes the concept of locating a
regional treatment pond on part of the city's leaf site.
This concept would involve loss of approximately 25,000
square feet of usable space from the present leaf site.
Page 2
Rick Jopke
December 8, 1992
This is unacceptable. Projection shows that the entire
area is needed for the continued leaf operation. To re-
orient the site is not practical. For this reason, an
alternate location must be sought for the regional pond.
This could be on the developer's property or adjacent
park property along Dale street.
b. storm water runoff was calculated by the developer's
engineer as a percentage of the drainage area. Instead
of this analysis technique, runoff contributions should
be analyzed based on volume of runoff not percent of
area. Tributary areas must be weighted to indicate type
of development and runoff factors. The final
feasibility report for drainage improvements will
include this concept.
c. The internal drainage scheme shows direct surface runoff
off from the streets. This type of drainage does not
work well and should not be allowed if it is considered
that the streets in the future would be public. Instead
the street design should be redone with internal catch
basins and a storm sewer system.
2. street design
a. If the streets are contemplated for future public
conveyance, a minimum of 50 feet of right-of-way should
be dedicated at this time. This will necessitate
variances for the proposed building locations.
b. Roseville minimum street standards must be used for the
design of streets including our typical section.
c. If the streets are to become public, snow removal in the
future would be extremely difficult because of minimal
boulevard snow storage. For this reason, we recommend
that the concept of conveying the streets to the city
not be explored. .
3. utility construction
a. The specifications prepared by the developer's engineer
are in conflict. They refer to the use of the city
standard specifications for utility system construction.
However, several of the items detailed in the plans are
substandard under our specification and conflict. In
all cases, the utilities must be built to city
standards. It is suggested in this case that the
utilities be built to city standards and conveyed to the
Page 3
Rick Jopke
December 8, 1992
city for ownership and maintenance. This will prevent
confusing situations in the future regarding
responsibility for watermain breaks, sewer backups, etc.
b. The watermain is shown in the plan as being looped on
itself to provide a source of supply from two directions
but off the same main. It is suggested that the
watermain be looped and a separate connection provided
to the 12" main within the County Road C right-of-way.
One of the 6" connections to the south could then be
eliminated.
c.
It is suggested
after review by
superintendent.
green areas and
that additional hydrants be located
the fire marshal and utility
Also, all water shutoffs should be in
not in driving surfaces.
In summary, the drainage, street, and utility plans for this
project need additional review and modifications prior to
construction. We have met with the developer and his engineer
once to discuss the plans in concept form but our comments have
not been transmitted. I would suggest that this memo be sent to
them for their review and comment.
DAHLGREN
SHARI)LC1W
ANI) . UBAN
INCORPORATED
CONSULTING PLANNERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH
SUITE 210
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
612·339·3300
7 December 1992
Craig Waldron
Community Development Dept.
Roseville City Hall
RE: AI Kehr's Parkridge Estates Devt.
Craig:
Enclosed are copies of my Office Hours memos for 10128192 and 11125192 concerning AI Kehr's
project, with my notes on what submission items were discussed. Call if you have more questions.
....J
en «
I--
Z
W w
0
-
~ (/') .
w ·I
a:....J w(/')
>-« a:-
a:J
1--1-- «0
-Z
~ (/')w a:(/')
Zo wo
w- a..Z
en o(/') .
(/')« "
I- w Z
~a: I- -
-I-- -
W W :J>- . Z- 0
W 01--- :Je[ Z w "
w(/')~ LO(/') 0 :J
I a.. Z
W ~Z....J ,,>= (/') -I--
en owa.. Ia: w (/') a:z
O:J (/')0 I-- ~w
1--;:0 Z
1--1-- (/') LL~
(!J l- . zoo -(/') z 0 :Jo
~ Z -
() I :)....Jz :JW 0 (/') mzw
a: a..~« 0 ....J (/')
0 It 0 . w" (/') oW....J
w a..o~ :J (/')z w ~ z~«
z ~a:- a..: :J- 0 ~ ««0
0 OLL~ 0 O(/') :J 0 WZO
a: N o oLt: I(/') ....J a a..::51-- "
I-- a
zw ða..(/')~z
w~w w ;:0 z <-'
~ (/') <-'O....J Z Z (/')a..(/')-o
w I-- Zl--<-' 0 0:J ;: o~~~z
a: (/') 1--5 z
a w «a..Z N 0 Z ~oawo
a: « :J I:J(/') w <oz Z :5
a: (\1_ a«oa..
(f') 0 a__
a.. I I I
V W 0 I I
~ . m a
(f') a: «
(f')
. (\I
~
.
~
w
(!J Cf)
Z «
Cf) « l-
I 0
Cf) ü Z
LU (!J Cf)
Z =>
0 - I
Z
I-
0 0
...
N .
a: I- ü
l-
e.. 0 w
Z .
I Cf)
...............
. I- ü I-
0 « Z
-
~ 0 w
. a: a: ~
::::>
LU .
c.. LU....J
a.: c.. c.. wo
LU « a: a:
Cf) - (!JI-
-
0 l-
=> «Z
0
-I ....J .0
« I qü
0 Cf)
- =>
ü -
- a..: I
LU w Ü
c.. Z o=>
Cf) 0 Z~
. .
.
~ C\I (t)
.
..-...
Z
0
I- -
en ...J
en -
en en 01-
Z -
- ~ Za..
en « ::>W
~
ø 00 0
UJ « 0 OZ W
~ 0 >-0 ...J
() -
ø «
w 1-0 I-
- Z - I
0 > °enO w~
-
W Z 00
a: a:......:... Z O...JI- .......... I-
Z«W
~~ « ...JW
«I- - -
a.. ...J ot:<.!J Or:
...Ja: a.. ZZ
«« .......... a..~~
~ :JW
. 00 .ma..
0 O~
- 1-::>«
enZ W UW
«« - a..(J)U
. > >-W
:::> ml- W WØen
.......... (J) a: OZO I-a:
-ø
. . . Z_Z
a.: 0c.!J (J) z U«
oZ<C
·Z (J) :5 ·0
:J- OZ...J
a.:>: W Z::>
~ ~ 0 a.. .....:5u.i «a..
oa: 0 I «a..c.!J ...J
I-W a: a:U« a.. .
LU U
wO a.. ...J(J)
I- W_Z
Z ZZ a.. W Zen- «Z
O:J W ~ W«<C ~:5
<.!Jma:
NW I- (J) ..........0 LLa..
WI (J)
. . .
a: I- Ct) « CD 0
. .
...- C\J
TAB LEN 0 .
County Road C and Dale Street Water Quality pond Project
Roseville, Minnesota
W.o. #92-211
11/25/92
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------.------
E N GIN E E R I N G C 0 S T EST I MAT E
ITEM
UNIT
ESTIMATED
QUANT !TY
UNIT
COST
AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearing acre 1.5 $2,000.00 $3,000.00
Grubbing acre 1.5 $2,000.00 $3,000.00
Common Excavation cu. yds. 8500 $3.00 $25,500.00
Seeding (incl. mulch and fert.) acre 4.3 $900 .00 $3,870.00
Class II Riprap cu. yds. 60 $35.00 $2,100.00
Geotextile Filter Fabric sq. yds. 236 $1.40 $330.40
Jack-bore 24" RCP Storm Sewer L.F. 52 $220.00 $11,440.00
24" RC Apron each 2 $793.00 $1,586.00
Construction Silt Fence L.F. 1000 $2.50 $2,500.00
Temp. Rock Con st. Entrance each 1 $980.00 $980.00
----------------
Subtotal "
$54,306.40
'Mobilization (3.61) "
$1,955.03
construction Contingencies (5X) "
$2,715.32
----------------
Total Construction Cost "
$58,976.75
Construction Inspection (7%) "
$4,128.37
Engineering, Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative (201) "
$11,795.35
================
Total "
$66,101.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parkridge Estates Trib. Drainage Area" 2.5466 acres" 7.07% of Total"
$4,673.39
Other Tributary Drainage Area" 33.4834 acres" 92.931 of Total "
$61,428.36
=========..=====
Total "
$66,101.75
ttGL 4 1 disvll9';ed ~ ftf»A47
~'> I rpred 10 Wrl-k ~
11w.t.i.,~. I ~d)lJ t(lŒ
tQ A\ ~~y ôþ,tfk}, kf~
Wh~'¡W¡ 1krtpo.f. --b
· r
.,...~..
~
.' /
ROSEVILLE PLANNING OFFICE HOURS
11/2:.'.2
2
building near the corner of Lydia and Snelling for student housing
and develop another lot further south for a motel. The Benj amin' s
restaurant property at Snelling and County Road C-2 is not part of
the plan at this time, nor is the gas station at Snelling and
Lydia.
Northwestern wants to present the ideas to the Planning commission
as a PUD Sketch review at the December 9 meeting. We will meet
with them on December 10 to discuss what items will be needed for
full PUD submission for the January 13 Planning commission meeting.
The basic issues involved will include overall density (over 40
units/acre), the height (7 stories for one of the buildings), and
the image and buffering to the neighborhood to the west. All of
these can be addressed within the PUD process, assuming a
comparison with the R-7 District standards (no height limit, up to
25 units/acre).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DM'e:J -- ¡-. .........~ ..,r-ìmr: . L"'~j.i~~ r ......:
Fi1. ~."11
Al.ehrfP.rkri~e ~~t
29 units of townhouses on private streets.
Basic land use question: are townhouses appropriate in this
location? Adjacent properties are similarly situated; future
access is a concern.
Additional ROW, 10' on County Road C shown on plan.
28'-wide internal streets OK. a c~~
storm ponding: internal pondi shown on plan; some
discussions about off-site pon 1ng improvements in Central
Park instead.
Landscaping: inadequate on east and west lot lines, inadequate
at each unit entry, more needed to the south at park edge.
Trees shown planted on new CR CROW.
NW corner: two u . s face existin 15' away, more
setback needed.
Fire hydrant locations, fire lanes, FH needs to be
addressed.
~ ~ ~pl~
sPhw.;MJ Î~ /1'10.
lé
Affiàauit of Jlubliratian
&tatt of 1IIinntSota}
ss.
<Hounty of fRamsty
, being duly sworn, on oath says that
he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper
Roseville Review
known as , and has full knowledge of the facts which
N. Theodore Lillie
are stated below:
(A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as
a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 831A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable
laws, as amended.
(B) The printed
Public Hearing Notice
which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published
once each week, fOf" 1 successive weeks; it was first pUblished on Tuesday ,the
24th day of Nov. , 19 9 L, and was thereafter printed and published on every
to and including
, the
day of
,19 _; and printed
below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby
acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the
notice:
. AKDI! lClHIJICLMNO lQRSTtt\"WX"IZ
AI!IGðt!P'GMhJKLMI4OfIðM T u v ~ À "
. abcxtefghlJldmnopq..wvwxyz
BY: /(.~ >f~
TITLE: ¡J, .
Subscribed and sworn
me on
* Alphabet should be in the same size and kind of type as the notice.
+_~__..-.c..-.~..-c"""-''''''I ~
I·,,,""''''' CAROLE HEURUNG 'I
¡ .~ð NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESarA
! e RAMSEY COUNTY RATE INFORMATION
t My Comm. Expires May 7,1998
+___~~..-c"-'¡~~'-'~~I'-'''-' I
(1) Lowest classified rate paid by
commercial users for comparable space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $12.00 per col. inch
(2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.93 per col. inch
(3) Rate actually charged for the above matter ..................... $
per col. inch
1/91
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 11- 22-93
ITEM NO.: t - ~
Department Approval:
~~
Manager Reviewed:
Agenda Section:
~
Hearings
Item Description:
Parkridge Development Corp. request for PUD
Concept Development Plan approval, rezoning
from R-1 to PUD and Comprehensive Plan
Amendment from low density residential to
medium density residential at 674 W. County
Road C.
Backqround:
1. Earlier this year, a public hearing on the application of
Parkridge Development Corporation for a rezoning from R-1 to
PUD and a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment from low density
residential to medium density residential at 674 W. County Road
C was scheduled for the November 10, 1993 Planning Commission
meeting and the November 22, 1993 City Council meeting. This
was intended to coincide with the original schedule of the
Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment process. At this point in
time, Parkridge Development Corporation would like to move the
public hearing to the March 1994 meetings of both the Planning
Commission and the City Council. At their regular meeting of
November 10, 1993, the Planning Commission moved to continue
the public hearing to their March 9, 1994 meeting.
Staff Recommendation:
1. It is recommended that the City Council continue consideration
of Parkridge Development Corporation's request for a rezoning
from R-1 to PUD and a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment to the
regular City Council meeting of March 28, 1994.
Council Action Requested:
1. Motion to continue consideration of Parkridge Development
Corporation's request for a rezoning from R-1 to PUD and a
comprehensive Guide Plan amendment from low density residential
to medium density residential at 674 W. County Road C to the
March 28, 1994 meeting.
Staff Report by: Mike Falk
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PLANNING FILE CHECK LIST
Planning File Number
2471
Applicant's Name Al Kehr
Date Checked _11_/_20_/1992
Checked by _Doug Strong____
Date on the Plans _10_/_27_/92
Plan Prepared By _Pope_Associates_Inc.
Legal
Any Deferred or Additional Assessments?
Yes X No
--
Type of Assessment Property Assessed Amount of Charges
Partial Full
- - - - $768.60
SANITARY SEWER X
STORM SEWER X $3654.24
STREET IMPROVEMENT
WATER IMPROVEMENT X $800.63
OTHER:
Any Additional R.O.W or Easements Required?
NO
YES
X
10 feet for County Road C
--
Any Sidewalks Required ?
NO
YES
X
_Along the North side of the lot.
--
Any Parking/Traffic Concerns ?
NO
YES
X
The East and South roadways are reduced to 18 with the
common parking as shown on the plans.
--
Any Existing City Easements on Record for this Property ?
NO X
--
YES
Page 1
Any Existing Grading/Drainage/Erosion Concerns ?
NO
YES
x
A erosion control plan must be approved by engineering.
--
Drainage Facilities Existing To Be Built
Storm Sewer Main X X
Ponding Area X
Catch Basins X
Describe Grading/Drainage/Erosion control plan:
Need Plans.
Any Utility Concerns? NO
YES ?
"No Plans"
--
Utility Facilities Existing To Be Built
Water Main X
Water Service X
Sanitary Sewer Main X
Sanitary Sewer Servo X
Describe Utility Service Plans:
"No Plans"
Any Curb and Gutter to be Removed?
NO
YES
X
Any Road/Parking Facilities Concerns? NO
YES
Describe Road/Parking lots to be built: The proposed new roadways will be
reduced to 18 feet along the common parking locations. The city's
requirements are not less then 24 feet.
Page 2
Site Improvements will be owned and maintained by:
Facility Public Private
Roadway X
Parking Lot X
Sanitary Sewer X
Water Main X
Storm Sewer X
Ponding Area X
Sidewalk X
Project Engineer
Final Site Plan Approval YES NO Date ____/____/1992
Inspection of Site Improvements to be provided by City ____ Owner
Page 3
~.
.œ
II
I
Ii
Hi
I
IH
-
c::
Q) 'd OJ 'd
E OJ .u ~
UJ cd 0
rn p.¡ ~ 111
rn -
rn cd
Q) Q) r-/
rn '- r-/ r:r:I ~
rn Q) cd .u H
« - p.¡ UJ
c:: -0-1 OJ
ctS t) UJ f..I UJ
J:: ~ f..I OJ f..I
- - .0-1 cd .u cd
0 ';: f..I OJ ~ OJ
I- PI >t H >t
qt ~ 0 00 0
N ("I') N 0 N
. r---
qt N 0
("I')
0
LO
('t)
T'""
,C\J
0"""
Za::
I-W
ü~
WW
-,(1)
O~
a:: 0
(La::
I-
C/)
~
!il
ttI
s
(I
;a;
<9
I
II!
~,
-
r:::
Q) '0 Q) '0
E Q) . .J s::
rn It! 0
en PI ~ rII
en -
en It!
Q) Q) ~
en '- ~ IïI s::
en Q) It! . .J H
« - 01 rn
r::: -0-1 Q)
tU u rn ~ rn
J:: s:: ~ Q) ~
- - -0-1 It! . .J It!
0 .;= ~ Q) s:: Q)
I- PI ~ H ~
o 0 0 ex> 0
I.D LO NON
qt N
o
(t)
T'""
.C\J
Of'..
Za:
I-W
O~
wW
.,en
O~
a:0
(l.a:
I-
en
=.
ill
I
z
qQ
:ji;;;ij'
Pi
i
<I
~
.....
r::::
CD "0 OJ "0
E OJ oW ¡:
I'll cd 0
en Q.¡ P:: ¡:Q
en .....
en cd
CD CD r-I
en 10... ...... IïI ¡:
en CD cd oW H
« ..... Q.¡ I'll
r:::: "M OJ
«S u I'll $-I I'll
.r:::: ¡: $-I OJ $-I
..... ..... "M cd oW cd
0 03= $-I OJ ¡: OJ
I- III >t H >t
\D "" 0 II) 0
"" NON
m .--I
.--I 0
N
'V
o I
O'V
ZCO
I-Z
0«
w~
-'a:
Ow
a: I-
ß.«
3:
~
I
I
w
..~..
>2;
œ
I
>..~...
I
~,
....
r:::
Q) '0 Q) '0
E Q) . .J ~
rn ro 0
en Q¡ P::: 111
en ....
en ro
Q) Q) r-i
en .... r-i IïI ~
en Q) ro . .J H
« .... Q¡ rn
r::: -,.. Q)
as u rn 1-1 rn
.r::: ~ 1-1 Q) 1-1
.... .... -,.. ro . .J ro
0 "3: 1-1 Q) ~ Q)
I- AI ~ H ~
\.0 <; < 0 Ll) 0
<; < NON
'" M
M 0
N
~
" I
O~
ZCO
I-Z
0«
w~
J[(
OW
[(I-
a..«
~
i
I
I:
œ
EH
B<
>i
==
....
r::
CD '0 OJ '0
E OJ .¡J ¡::
m ro 0
tJ) J.¡ ~ I!I
tJ) ....
tJ) ro
CD CD r-i
tJ) "- r-i ï ¡::
tJ) CD ro .¡J H
« .... J.¡ m
r:: ..-1 OJ
«1 t) m ~ m
.r:: ¡:: ~ OJ ~
.... .... -.-I ro .¡J ro
0 .;: ~ OJ ¡:: OJ
I- PI ~ H ~
LO t"- o LO 0
N ("I') N 0 N
q¡ N
0
M
~
("I')
~
. I
O~
ZCC
I-Z
0«
w~
-'oc
Ow
OCI-
a.«
3:
;!
=
,J'/:1:.:
I
;1
I
Z>
S
15
t::t
1<
=
-
c::
Q) "0 Q) "0
E Q) .u s::
m ro 0
U) P.I ~ I!I
U) -
U) ro
Q) Q) M
U) '- r-I r:r:t s::
U) Q) ro .u H
< - P.I m
c:: .~ Q)
(ij t) m ~ m
J:: s:: ~ Q) ~
- - .~ ro .u ro
0 .3: ~ Q) s:: Q)
I- PI >t H >t
LO LO 0 LO 0
t"- o N 0 N
ex> LO
ex> ~ 0
N
'<;t'
0
'<;t'
(Y)
a:
·W
O~
Zw
1-00
Ü>-
~a:
0<
a: I-
Q.Z
<
00
'''_~...,'''''''4_·__'_~~~,'''''''~''''nll¥l!1"''''
~
:1
tIS
J~
II
s
I
I
r·..··..·..··..····
-
r::::
(I) 't1 Q) 't1
E Q) .¡J ~
rn cd 0
CJ) PI p::: r:Q
CJ) -
CJ) cd
(I) (I) r-i
CJ) ... ,..; r:iI ~
CJ) (I) cd .¡J H
« - PI rn
r:::: ..-1 Q)
as u rn H rn
J:: s::: H Q) H
- - ..-1 cd .¡J cd
0 '3= H Q) s::: Q)
I- PI ~ H ~
LO LO 0 LO 0
N , N 0 N
.-t 00
C"- M 0
, N
M
\0
M
(t)
a:
~~
I-W
OW
W>-
...,a:
O~
a:_
a.Z
«
en
To:
steven D. Gatlin, Public Works Director
Karl P. Keel, Assistant Public Works DirectorVJ\
AL KEHR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PONDING
From:
RE:
Date:
November 18, 1992
Al Kehr will propose a townhome development near the corner of County
Road C and Dale street to the Planning Commission on December 9, 1992.
Mr. Kehr is requesting a rezoning of his property from R-l to PUD.
As part of his development, Mr. Kehr is required to provide stormwater
detention to maintain an existing lO-year rate of runoff. Mr. Kehr has
hired Sunde Engineering to prepare a plan that provides on-site ponding.
with a few modifications, the design prepared by Sunde will satisfy our
requirements.
As an alternate solution, we have suggested to Mr. Kehr that he pursue
off-site ponding. Namely, that he contribute to the construction
of a treatment pond on the east side of Dale Street south of the city's
leaf composting site.
In the past, the city has raised concerns about the environmental
impacts of the leaf site on the nature center wetland. By constructing
a treatment pond south of the site, it may be possible to treat water
not only from Dale Street, Mr. Kehr's site, but also from the leaf
compost site. We have told Mr. Kehr that if the storm sewer that exists
in County Road C and Dale Street will carry a 100-year event to the
proposed ponding area, that the city would consider constructing the
treatment pond and that Mr. Kehr would contribute a fair portion of the
cost. Ramsey County would also be expected to contribute for their
portion of the runoff.
I have discussed this issue with Brian Mundstock of Sunde Engineering.
He will investigate the capacity of the system in County Road C and
Dale Street and communicate their findings to us.
A copy of Al Kehr's site plan as well as an aerial photograph roughing
out a potential pond is attached.
Attachment
I)Af--f LG Rl~N
S tft\Rl)LC)\V
AN [) . tJ Bf\N
!'C()!lI'()I~:\ !{-I'
CONSULTING PLANNERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
.Ion FIRST AVENUE NORTH
SUITE 210
MINNEAPOLIS, MN :):)40!
hI2.B9-BOO
t(Ö){PY
16 November 1992
Bob Bell
Peterson, Bell, Converse, and Jensen
280·North Snelling Avenue
Suite 327
Roseville, MN 55113
RE: Roseville Sign Ordinance Issues
Dear Bob:
We are writing to ask for clarification and advice on issues related to Roseville's Sign Ordinance,
both the current ordinance and the recently approved amendments.
The first issue concerns the prohibition of billboards in Roseville ("advertising signs" in the Code),
and the recent amendment to the Code prohibiting off-premise directional signs. These issues are
touched on in the attached summary of the Burkhardt Advertising v. at] of Auburn case in the APA
publication, Land Use Law & Zoning Digest. In light of Burkhardt's First Amendment
arguments, can the City continue to prohibit billboards and off-premises signs in the community?
The second issue concerns the amortization and eventual removal of existing non-œnforming
signage, including billboards as mentioned above, but also large non:.conforming pylon signs. The
Planning Commission has expressed a desire to allow amortization of these signs over a certain
period, at which time they would need to be removed or brought into compliance with the latest
City Code. Please advise us as to how such an amortization provision could be implemented in
Roseville.
The third issue also involves free speech questions: whether the City can limit the number of
American flags displayed by a business. A suggested amendment to the Code (not yet adopted)
concerning flags and banners would allow only two flags per business. The summary of another
case, Dimmitt v. City of Clearwater, is attached, wherein the District Court ruled that such a
limitation was a violation of the First Amendment. Must we remove this restriction altogether, or
Bob Bell 11/16/92
Page 2
can an ordinance be drafted that would satisfy the concerns in Dimmitt as well as the City's desire
to limit the proliferation of flags on a given property? The court's statement that the Clearwater
ordinance is not "tailored. . . to satisfy the governmental interest claimed" seems to leave room
for an ordinance that H properly tailored. I have attached a copy of our previously suggested
ordinance language on flags. Please advise.
Please call if you have questions or need clarification on any of these issues.
Sincerely,
DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC.
Attachments
cc: Craig Waldron
/~
,.' /'
ROSEVILLE PLANNING OFFICE HOURS
1012a".
4
comp~~te~s. .-view for December 9 Planning commission Meeting:
2471/Al.~, »ark .t.......l.....~ PUD (Townhouses)
* All items on the PUD submission list have been provided
except:
()~( - staging of the PUD is unclear. We will contact Mr.
\~Kehr or his architect to clarify.
_~- . 'te Plan and Landscape Plan need . ing
f\t houses across County Road C and the existing landscapin
\ J ose yards, since Mr. Kehr has hat
1 "'" ~ existing landscaping will provide some of the scr enir~ L
\~tþ' ll'~ to his project. ,^r¡fh¡.~1JWyJ
-....:.\J[ - Architectural building elevations are needed Of.... thew f~
\ 1W;- front of the one-story uni ts and the side of the J ~1.0
~ two-story units.
* Even though most details have been provided for this
project, the basic question of the appropriateness of this
land use in this location needs to be a ad asked
Mr. Kehr to show on an area map th ther propert he is
interested in purchasing, so that the neigh the city
could see clearly the extent of the land use ange Mr. Kehr
is hoping to develop.
\
\
\
\
~ ~SkJ {;v ~e *t.WI"5 ~aP lJ'4
f~ ~ '(lerk~.. J ~C)re A<h1c·
~F~'7 ~d.
1¿
'S'~k Q~
{tr!er p~ II'~
i\ftibøutt of Jlublttatton
&tatt uf øtinnt.6uta}
ss.
aLountg of Ilamstg
N. Theodore Lil]]s
. being duly sworn, on oath says that
he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper
known as Ros ev i ] Ie Rev; ~w
, and has full knowledge of the facts which
are stated below:
(A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as
a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable
laws, as amended.
(B) The printed
Pnhl;("" u~arinlJ Notice
which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published
once each week, for
1
successive weeks; it was first published on Tuesday, the
26th
day of
Oct.
19~,
and was thereafter printed and published on every
to and including
, the
day of
, 19_; and printed
below is a copy of the lower case alpt:!abet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby
acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used In the composition and publication of the
notice:
. ABeDErSllldKL.MN9PQRSTY·:VßCYZ
* ABC.DEI"GHIJKLMNOIIQ,.STU v itXYl
* abcdefghljklmnopqrstuvwxyz
BY, 71. ~-~XJ-¿·'·'
TITLE: 1/. .
Subscribed and sworn
me on
,19~.
* Alphabet should be in the same size and kind of type as the notice.
'oß*'¡!~"""'-'''''' II IIJJI. _11 W-+
CAROLE HEURUNG II
NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA RATE INFORMATION
RAMSEY COUNTY
4 My Comm. Expires May 7,1998 I
:.,........._.,..._._~_~..-.~.-.~.-..-c~
(1) Lowest classified rate paid by
commercial users for comparable space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14.10 per col. inch
(2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6.94 per col. inch
(3) Rate actually charged for the above matter . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
per col. inch
1/93
p
o
T
p
f
s
A
s
o
(
f
s
A
October 27, 1992
City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Re: Parkridge Estates
Project Description
Parkridge Estates is a twenty-nine unit townhome development on 3.67
acres of land south of County Road C and just west of Dale Street.
The site is currently zoned R-1 (single family residential) and we are
requesting that the development be classified under the zoning district
P.U.D., which will allow the construction of townhomes.
P.U.D. or Planned Unit Development is a zoning district which is intended to
create a more flexible, creative, and efficient approach to the use of land
subject to the rules and regulations of the City Code of Roseville.
The market that we are targeting the units toward is the forty-five year old
plus age group sometimes called "empty nesters". Their children have
grown up and left home and they are looking for a smaller place to live in.
They can also appreciate the fact that all of the building and yard
maintenance will be done by the townhome association.
We feel that changing the zoning from R-1 is not out of character here
because directly to the west is the American Legion which is zoned business
B-1, just one lot to the east is a multi-family unit zoned R-2, and just three
lots to the east at the corner of County Road C and Dale Street is a three
story condominium building zoned R-3A (Ramsey Square Condominiums -
240 units) and this is bordered to the north and east by another townhome
development (Westwood Village - 163 units).
Approximately one-half of the proposed site is overgrown with various small
trees, weeds, and shrubs and does not give a very attractive appearance.
We feel that this development would enhance the appearance of this part of
the neighborhood.
It is also our understanding that there is a need for housing for our target
market in the City of Roseville. These people would not be objectionable but
would be good neighbors.
~
~
~J).",-...~~4:~ ~..~r~""""r:'",
N
c.
1360 Energy Park Drive
Suite 300
SI. Paul, Minnesota
55108-5202
612 642 9200
FAX: 612 6421101
City of Roseville
Re: Parkridge Estates
Project Description
October 27, 1992
Page 2
We will be providing twenty-nine units on 3.67 acres of land. This breaks
down to 7.9 units per acre or 5,513 square feet of land per unit.
There will be six single story units of 1,500 square feet and twenty-three
split level units of 1,700 and 1,900 square feet. Each unit has a two car
garage (adding 400 square feet to each unit) with adequate parking in the
driveway for two additional cars. We have also accommodated on-street
parking for twenty-three cars if needed. The internal streets will be twenty-
eight feet wide and built to City standards so parking on one side of the
street will not create a hardship.
A common meeting room directly adjacent to one of the units will be built
in order to provide an area for the association to hold their meetings and to
provide an area for any other groups.
The project will be developed in stages. Construction will begin in the spring
of 1 993 and we will be building at least two groups of buildings, a two unit
single story complex and a five unit split level complex. Two of the split
level units will be built as models and the remainder of the development will
take place as the units become sold.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
2660 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
ROSBVILLE, MINNESOTA 55113
Please cbeck item or items for whidl yœ are çpIyirq:
..nx.. :RID
- RezaWq
Special Use Pemit
== Vacatiœ of Right-of-way
_ PreUminaxy and Final Plat
$750
$300
$200
$200
$500
_ Q:IIprehensive Plan A1nelrlment
Divisiat of Platted IDt
== Relocatia1 of Diællin;J
_ Variarx:e to Za1iJç C>J::àinaooe
Shoreline PeJ:mit
$750
$100
$100
$200
$ 50
Please cœplete fcmn by typin;J or print.:i.rq in ink. If the spaces provided are
insufficient, use additia1al. sheets, JœyiJq infœ:matiat to the p%q)er item ~rs:
1.
PARKRIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Name of OWner: (First)
(Middle)
(last) (Rlone)
(state) (Zip)
484-5083
(last) (Rlone)
(state) (Zip)
2. G88 WEST r,OUNTY ROAD D. ROSEVILLE. MINNESOTA 55113
Address of OWner: (No. and Sb.~) (City)
3.
AL KEHR ( PARTNER )
(Name of çlicant): (First)
(Middle)
4. 9RR WF.S'T' ~nTTN'T'Y RnAn n RnSF.VTT.T,E MINNF.SO'T'A ,),)ll~
(Address of ç1.): (No. and Sb:e.et) (City)
5. JUST WEST OF COUNTY RQAD C AND DALE STREET
street Address of Property Involved:
6.
Calplete Isga1 Descriptia1 of Property Involved:
ATTACHED
7.
I8te Property Acquired: ] G82 and lGG2
Vacant and
Present Use of P.1.~ty: Residential 9.
Prqx:sed Use of Property: Townhomes
Present Za1irr;J of Property: R-l
Prqx:sed Zoni.rg of Property: P. U ~ D .
8.
10.
Present Q::IJprehensive Plan Designation:
Prqx:sed Cœprehensive Plan Designation:
Low Density Residential
Low to Medium Density Residential
11. What plan or charge makes this request neoessary? The proposed development of
townhomes on propertv zoned R-l.
12. What is the expected effect of the prqxJSed charge? (For exanple, on property
values, health, safety, pazid.rg, traffic cxn:litia1S, etc.)
The development will enhance this part of the neighborhood.
-2-
13. For Rezaún:r DrùY: N / A
A. If p::'q)ert:y to be rezc:med is C11r:t:eut1y za1ed in two or m:n:e ZCI'ÚJ'g
classificaticms, set forth the legal descripticn of eaå1 such separate
zcn:irq classificaticn.
B. If pr:q¡œed J:eZa'Ûn;J will reza1e the p::'q)ert:y into two or m:n:e separate
zarlnJ classificaticns, set forth the legal descripticm of eaå1 such
separate zaú.rç classificaticn.
14. For Spec;A' Use DrùY: N/A
A. City QxJe Secticn authariziD;J spec;A' use pemits:
15.
For Vacaticn of Riaht-of-wav orüy:
N/A
A. A petiticn DUSt be subDitted signed by at least 51% of the ab.1ttÏD:J
p::'q)ert:y owners. '!he ariqinal statement in the petition shcA.1ld be as
follows: "We, the urœrsigned, owners of at least 51% (fifty-one percent)
of the p::'q)ert:y abJtt:iDJ request that this
secticn of right-of-way be vaœted because it is no larger of value to the
general pJblic.
All prq:mt.y owners signirg the petitioo shall list their address am
legal descript.ia1 of their p::'q)ert:y.
16.
For Plattin::r onlY:
A. N\.mt)er of Lots:
N/A
B. SUJ:xlivisicn to be known as:
c. EDji.neer:
Name
:Alone
R10ne
D. I.atñ Planner: Name
17. For Division of Platted Lot onlY: N / A
A. Separate legal descript.ia1 for each newly created lot shall be provided.
18. For Relocation of I)¡,¡ e1lira Only: N/A
A. '!he legal descripticn shall be of the lam upon ~ch the building is to
be DDVed.
B. '!he. awlicaticn shall be a~ed by a written consent am approval of
at least 50% of the p::'q)ert:y owners within 250 feet of the relocation.
19. For vaziarx:,e only: N/A
A. variance is requested ftan the follOVlirg secticm of the City Code:
-3-
B. state exactly Ÿ1at is i.ntenieå to be date Q1 or with the ptq)erty whidl
does not ocm.fom with the City 0X3e:
20. A¡:plicants requestiDJ a rezaUn.;r, speci"l use pez:mit, POD, variance, division
of lot, or p1.at;t:jzç of pL~ty axe encouraged to c:xn1uct a neigh1xnt\ood
meetin;J at least fifteen (15) days before the sd1edù1.ed Planning O:mnission
Public 1fearin;J, arñ shall sem notices to all of the affected ptq)erty owners.
Affected owners are Ÿ1CSe listed Q1 the œquind Abstractor's O!rtificate. '!he
JDeetiDJ shall be a time for the 8R>licant to review arñ explain the p1.~
develv¡..mt:=l1t to the owners.
'!his policy awlies aù.y men ms:identia1 pL~ty, R-l tbnu]h R-8, is listed
en the Abstractor's certificate. '!his policy does not awly to prcp!rty
prqa;ed for devel~it 14ù.ål is za1ed R-l arñ will be or ocmtinue to be used
for sin;Jle family haJsin;J.
Please irdi.cate the date that.you have met or will be meetin;J with the affected
pI'q)erty owners:
21. Except as notai. the followina informatim 1111181: be su1:mitted for all
amlications.
A. AR?licatien arñ Fee
B. Abstractor's O!rtificate list::iIq the NAMES AND ~ œ TA~~ of the
owners of the larñ within 350 feet of the bouIœries of the prcp!rty in
question special use pm:mit, rezarln;;J, POD am c:xmprehensive plan
amerdoent awlicatiœs is œquind. 250 feet for variance, lot divisions,
preliminazy/final plat, house relcx:atiat, arñ vacaticn of right-of-way
awlicatiœs is œquind.
c. Pì.u¡.œ;ed plans (2 t"q)ies) .iJx::1min;J site plan, ;Lamsœpe plan, grading am
drainage plan, am exterior buildin:¡ elevatim drawin3s sl10wiIg building
materials is required (1 c:xpy for shoreline pemi.t) .
D. Reductions of a ~le scale of the p1.qa;ed plan (26 t"q)ies). (1 copy
only for shoreline pemits) .
E. Narrative - (see attad1ed ocmtent requirements).
F. ~m¥:'nts as required by the City Plarmer.
22. ~1 inllrfoi-. P.t'o-s:
A. ~ ani aœ- -~enyj.D¡~w lib ævJaJed by the City staff.
B. ~let4d awliaaticn pr..mtë to tbe City 0:Dcll far referral to the
P1arJnÜ1rJ n.-i-dmfar pti.1c heIu:inJ.
c. P1arJnÜ1rJ n.-; llUZiat CICIåJcts p"l Ie heIu:inJ aid ...~ no- -"'I·-rœtim to
the City 01n::i1.
D. City council c:x:niucts pJblic heIu:inJ.
23. '!be above stat8Dents are true ani c:m:rect to the best of JII.i kncwleà;Je.
~I~
C9~
Title
¿ / J., - À/ RJ.í- ð-O g; .3
~.....
DIt:e (JA; 2 ~ I c¡ 92....
DESCRIPTION: East Parcel (as furnished)
That part of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 11, Township 29. Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at a
point 33 feet'West and. 33 feet South of the Northeast corner of the Northeast
1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, Townshi p 29, Range 23; thence West on /
a 1 ine parallel to the North 1 ine of said Northeast 1/4, 263.88 feet to point.
of beginning; thence West on the SIM 11ne 98.96 feet; thence South 409.83
feet to a point 395.24 feet West of the East 11ne of said section; thence East
98.81 feet; thence North 410.10 feet to place of beginning.
Ramsey County, Minnesota.
DESCRIPTION: Middle Parcel (as furnished)
That part of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 11, Township 29, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at a
point 33 feet West and 33 feet South of the Northeast corner of the Northeast
1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11. Township 29, Range 23; thence West on
a line parallel to the North 11ne of said ·Northeast 1/4, 362.84 feet to point
of beginning; thence West on the Sale line 98.97 feet; thence South 409.56
feet to a point 494.05 feet West of the East line.of said section; 'thence East
98.81 feet; thence North 409.83 feet to place of beginning.
Ramsey County, Minnesota.
DESCRIPTION: West Parcel (as furnished)
The West 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 23, according to Government
Survey excepting the Southerly 2/3 of the West 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the East
1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of' the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29,
Range 23.
Ramsey County, Minnesota.
,~
)~11
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 02-08-92
ITEM NO.: (l- t/
Department Approval:
Manager Reviewed:
Agenda Section:
~
~
Hearings
Item Description:
Parkridge Development Corporation request for
PUD concept development plan approval,
rezoning from R-1 to PUD and comprehensive
plan amendment from low density residential to
medium density residential.
Backqround:
1. The Roseville Planning Commission continued consideration of
Parkridge Development Corporation request for rezoning, PUD
concept plan, and comprehensive plan amendment approval until
February 10, 1993 to address density, design, and utility
issues raised at the Planning Commission meeting.
2. The applicant has subsequently asked that the City delay
review of his application until after the vista 2000 process
is complete.
Staff Recommendation:
1. It is recommended that the City Council continue
consideration of Parkridge Development Corporation request
for rezoning, PUD concept plan, and comprehensive plan
amendment approval until September 13, 1993.
Council Action Reauested:
1. Motion to continue Parkridge Development Corporation request
for rezoning, PUD general concept plan, and comprehensive
plan amendment approval until September 13, 1993.
('
(
January 25, 1985
MEMO
To: Planning Commission
From: Fire Marshal ~~
Subject: Kehr Townhouses
At the request of Steve North and Howard Dahlgren, I have reviewed the plans
submitted with the application for compliance with the Minnesota Uniform
Fire Code and the policies adopted by the Roseville Fire Department. The
major area of concern is the access to the complex for Fire Department
apparatus. The site plan appears to be identical to the original proposal
and, therefore, our objections will have to be the same as they were at
that time.
I have reviewed the project, in concept, with Mr. Robert Miller, Fire Code
Administrator, International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). This
is the group that writes both the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire
Code. It was Mr. Miller's opinion, that as designed on the site plan, this
project does not meet the intent of Section 10.207 of the Uniform Fire Code
as adopted by the State of Minnesota and the City of Roseville.
If, the project is constructed as shown as "Proposal I" on page two the
reduced size plans, this project would meet the intent of Section 10.207.
It would also meet the intent of the Fire Department Policy (copy attached)
regarding "Access Roadways". Proposal II does not meet the intent of the
Code or the written Policy.
This project has buildings in excess of 150 feet from a dedicated public
street and has an access roadway between 200 feet and 500 feet in length.
The Policy will require a 70 foot diameter cul-de-sac or a 60 foot hammer-
head as a minimum turnaround. The turnaround requirement could be modified
if automatic sprinkler system is installed in all buildings as specified in
#3 of the Department's Policy.
The fire hydrant ;appears to meet the guidelines as spelled out in the Fire
Department Policy on fire hydrants.
( /
ROSEVILLE FIRE DEPART}Œ~' !
UNIFORM FIRE CODE POLICY - ACCESS ROADWAYS
1. All buildings having an exterior wall located over 150 feet from the
curb line of a dedicated public street shall be provided with fire
department access ways which shall be totally unobstructed, including
the parking of motor vehicles.
2. The 150 feet from required access roadway to all exterior walls of
bUildings shall be measured in a straight line and shall run through
all buildings and other obstructions. If topographical conditions
exist that would make it impossible for hose lines to be advanced to
a certain portion of a building from a required access way, an addi-
tional access way will Ðe required to accommodate access to that
particular portion of the building.
3. The fire department access may be modified if the building is provided
with an approved complete automatic sprinkler system or other approved
automatic protection.
4. Required access roadways shall be kept a m1n1mum of 26 feet in width
in the immediate vacinity of any building over 35 feet in height above
natural final grade. At least one require access roadway shall be
located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet from the
building and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the
building.
5. Adjacent to required fire hydrants, access roadways shall be a minimum
of 24 feet in width, 20 feet in both directions from the fire hydrant.
6. Access doors shall be provided every 100 feet or openings as specified
in Section 3802(b)1 (1982 Edition) of the Uniform Building Code on the
exterior walls of buildings along required access ways.
7. Required access roadways shall be required on two sides of a bUilding
when the width of the building exceeds 150 feet and the length exceeds
150 feet.
8. Required access roadways shall be required along the two long dimensions
of a building exceeding 100 feet in width and 600 feet in length.
9. Maximum grades for access roadways shall be 8 percent.
10. If access roadways are not looped, then the provided dead-end access
roadways shall meet the requirements as specified in the following
table and diagram:
REQUIREMENTS FOR DEAD-END ACCESS WAYS
LENGTH WIDTH TURNAROUNDS REQUIRED
* 0-200' 20' None Required
* 200'-500' 20' 70' Diameter Cul-de-sac
60' Hammerhead
500'-750' 24' 96' Diameter Cul-de-sac
120' Hammerhead
Over 750' Special Approval Required
(
J
96' DIAMETER
CUL-DE-SAC
B '" 3 TIMES A
SEMITRAILER WHEELTRACKS
48' RADIUS
70' DIAMETER
CUL·DE·SAC
....
..
20'
60'
HAMMERHEAD
( ;'"
ACCEPTABLE
ALTERNATIVE TO
120' HAMMERHEAD
20'
TYP
MINIMUM CLEARANCE
AROUND A FIRE
HYDRANT
28'R
TYP
26·
120'
HAMMERHEAD
ACCEPTABLE
ALTERNATIVE TO
120' HAMMERHEAD
,.~
KEHR TOWNHOUSES
5 Unit Bldg.
4
1
"A" Units
"L" Unit
95,300.00 ea.
112,Ø0Ø.ØØ ea.
Permit Fee
State Surcharge
S.A.C.
5 - 5/8" W. Meters @ $65.0Ø ea.
Total
3 Unit Bldg.
2
1
"B" Units
"L" Unit
95,3Ø0.ØØ ea.
112,ØØØ.Øø ea.
Permit Fee ,
State Surcharge
S.A.C.
3 - 5/8" W. Meters @ $65.ØØ
Total
5 Unit Bldg.
3
2
"C" Units
"L" Units
93,40Ø.ØØ ea.
112,0ØØ.ØØ ea.
Permit Fee
State Surcharge
S.A.C.
5 - 5/8" W. Meters @ $65.ØØ
Total'
$381,2Ø0.ØØ
112,Ø0Ø.ØØ
$493,2ØØ.ØØ
$2,Ø18.5Ø
246.60
2,75Ø.Ø0
325.0Ø
$5,34Ø.lØ
$19Ø,6ØØ.ØØ
112,00Ø.Ø0
$302,60Ø.ØØ
$1,35Ø.ØØ
151,3Ø
1,650.ØØ
195.ØØ
$3,346.30
$28Ø,ØØØ.ØØ
224,ØØØ.ØØ'
$5Ø4,2ØØ.ØØ.
$2,Ø54.5Ø
252.1Ø
4· 2,750.ØØ
325.ØØ
$5,381.60
i
$2,ØØØ.;ØØ
15.5Ø
15.50
1 - Construction Deposit for all units.
1 Sewer Permit for all units.
1 - Water Permit for all units.
1 - Landscape Bond (1-1/2 times bid estimates)
Add any water, sewer, storm sewer, or other property
to permit costs.
assessments
.'1
. ."
Sf,DI MoJl'Ao'nO~
,,0" ~D .
.
...0
.'
,...,0
... ,-,.\
."
....\
.to
../
j /'"
? ....
OLD SCJ..tf,M£, - (~q Z .
JRN 28 '94 13:56 POPE RSSOCIRTES
~~~
~~r :]
~l~ ~~
J~1)O
::
Lt..
P.1/2
I··t-~~---
l.
.,JII.....
00,
I
i
I'
..-..--
-----.---.-.......-..-----,....
\.
'.
\
.'
I
1
I
I
\
¡. I
.'
I
\
I
1_-
~.
\../'iIII'
:,
I
I
1
I
I
1
\
I
I
1
1
\
---B~- i
... .__ _ _____-..--q -r
- - ------."
COUNTY
-..... ~
.___...._... ... .._....u...._.____
ROAD
'C"
~~.
a\fO~
Á1Nno~
'.
. .
-
~
- -
--
1----------- -- I
I I
I Ir, 11 I
I I
I I
I --- --- I
I
11 lIP . I
I
I
I --- --- I
I
--- to lIS I
I
1.-.. I
I
I
I .
I ---- I
I I
I ~ 11 1-4 I
'f I I
I I :1
I --- --- --- I
I ¥ 1,'¿ I
I I", I
I I
I I
\ ,
I I
,
,.
I
5 ~ 8 I c¡ 10 II 12-
,
C.. ,
,
--~
--
I I ~ ·
f <
Zm WOO ~I fi I · ~
·
8~ i · <
·l~ If ·
f-- a:~ ~J!I ~ I ' ,I
æt>
....____en lit; !¡ ~w ,I! h
<:> en 0...
....--1....,
i
, ! _I
I ,1
J' I ,¡I I
, ¡
i i. i if "
i . ~I ¡i j- 1 'j'
n !dnid i I
· I .! " 1'1 j 1 I
¡ I Ii I¡ ~;I J .
: I .~ h "'i : H i
~ ~ ~j ~q I ~ ~n
I
IllIIUUlIlUIUUm
I
.I~~~;.;.;.~~~~~~;.~;.~~~~~
¡ I iii¡U111m~¡~·J¡¡~¡
· Iltl !!II'I lj!
! JiI! : C,.bu . 'I;!¡
1111-'10' 11)1 1'1 !.I
j :.~::: ~~~:::~~ :~~~
I ullcnsaluUIUtH
.~. a v 0 t:f A 1 N n 0 ~
---
I ~JI
·
·
~ 'I ~
· I
· .
· "
· !
0... ;.
"" ,
'. "
· .
1 :
·
·
.
i
Q
.
~
I
.
i
Q
=
~
ï
i
~~
z
«
.-J
a..
W
CI¡>
(J)~
I
: ~
: "
4 !
J .
· ,
· "
· .
· ï
· .
: .
,
·
·
a
l....1
LAND USE/CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES
. ~
EXHIBIT 4: SCALE 1"-200'
FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT No
ALL PARCELS BETWEEN KEHR AND DALE..~TREET
PLUS FUTURE STREET CONNECTIONS
Exhibit 4
1. Exhibit 4 illustrates a potential configuration of buildings. assuming .tþe incorporation of
all of the properties to the east ofKehr. It is only an illustration for discussion purposes.
This change is unlikely to occur any time soon because the two properties (Britz and
Booth) appear to be in good condition. Mr. Britz spoke in opposition to the change at the
Council hearing. (Mr. Booth stated he was concerned about being left as an "island" and
increased taxes).
2. As Figure 4 shows, the combination of the northern half of the Salverda property. with the
Britz and Booth parcels would allow approximately 6 units to be built. No driveway
would have direct access onto County Road C. This would only occur if all three of the
owners agreed to sell. They would control the situation completely. In the meantime, the
MR designation would be an asset to them adding flexibility for the future.
3. The Kehr-Borgstrom-Salverda-Britz and Booth 39 unit development will add
approximately 58 new residents, generate between 240 and 270 total traffic movements (in
and out) and add an estimated $5.8 million in new housing development.
~
CJ
o
..
..
c.
C
-{)O
LAND USE/CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES
..
EXHIBIT 1: SCALE 1"-200'
KEHR PROPOSAL No
PLUS FUTURE STREET CONNECTIONS
Exhibit 1
1. Exhibit 1 illustrates the existing conditions in the area with the addition of the current 23
housing units proposed by Kehr (6 units/acre). It has been designed to eventually
incorporate the Borgstrom Property into the development. If this does not occur, the
PUD could require additional buffering, screening or even a change in the layout. As
currently planned and zoned, Kehr's land could be used for single fa~ly homes at
approximately 3.3 units/acre. It would add 10-12 homes with 100-120 total trips per day
and 30 to 3S new residents; and it would add $1.5 million in new housing value.
2. Kehr's proposed 23 unit development will add approximately 35 new residents, generate
between 140 and 160 total traffic movements (in or out); and add an estimated $3.4
million in new housing development.
3. If the Kehr project is approved, the land use designation to the east ofKehr should
eventually be changed to MR Medium Density Residential. The future street extensions to
Dale Street and to the west should be included in the Comprehensive Plan, making it clear
in the text of the plan that these streets will be built ~ when these areas develop. All of
these land owners can continue to maintain the current use of their properties as long as
they want. They can sell the property or even rebuild. The future streets would only be
necessary if and when the owner decides to develop the land.
l.A
~
a-voa
A1Nno~
CJ
G
~O
LAND USE/CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES
..
EXHIBIT 1: SCALE 1"-200'
KERR PROPOSAL No
PLUS FUTURE STREET CONNECTIONS
Exhibit I
1. Exhibit 1 illustrates the existing conditions in the area with the addition of the current 23
housing units proposed by Kehr (6 units/acre). It has been designed to eventually
incorporate the Borgstrom Property into the development. If this does not occur, the
PUD could require additional buffering, screening or even a change in the layout. As
currently planned and zoned, Kehr's land could be used for single family homes at
...........nv1mQt,.1u 11l1nit~acre It would add 10-12 homes with 100-120 total trips per day
LAND USE/CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES·
EXHIBIT 2:
KERR AND BORGSTROM
PLUS FUTURE STREET CONNECTIONS
"
SCALE 1"-200'
No
. .
Exhibit 2
1. Exhibit 2 adds the Borgstrom Property (estimated at 7 housing units) to the Kehr PUD.
In Mr. Borgstrom's letter he states that he has been in negotiations with Mr. Kehr to sell
his property and he requested the change in land use for his proper.ty as well.
2. The Borgstrom Property can be very efficiently added to the proposed street design in the
Kehr proposal and no street needs be extended to Dale St. at this point.
3. The Kehr-Borgstrom 30 unit development will add approximately 45 new residents,
generate between 180 and 210 total traffic movements (in and out); and add an estimated
$4.5 million in new housing development.
,.
tA
~
a.yoa
A.LNnO~
..
I
'-------
I
, t-
III
.
..
t-
.
CJ
-
..
c.
a
c
~o
LAND USE/CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES
EXHIBIT 2:
KERR AND BORGSTROM
PLUS FUTURE STREET CONNECTIONS
..
SCALE 1"-200'
No.
Exhibit 2
1. Exhibit 2 adds the Borgstrom Property (estimated at 7 housing units) to the Kehr PUD.
In Mr. Borgstrom's letter he states that he has been in negotiations with Mr. Kehr to sell
his property and he requested the change in land use for his property as well.
2. The Borgstrom Property can be very efficiently added to the proposed street design in the
Kehr proposal and no street needs be extended to Dale St. at this point.
LAND USE/\,;lK\.; UL^.I.lVl~ ð.LJ'" JL:¡.IL....L ·u...... -- . --
EXHIBIT 3: '
KEHR, BORGSTROM AND SALVERDA
PLUS FUTURE STREET CONNECTIONS
SCÁLE 1"-200'
No
Exhibit 3
1. Exhibit 3 adds the Salverda Property. John Shardlow has met with Leonard Salverda,
who has indicated his support for the change. He has submitted a letter indicating his
support (actually the land is"in his mother's name).
2. When the Salverda parcel is developed, the street connection to Dale Street must be
constructed. Mr. Salverda understands the need for this connection, but, he is
understandably concerned about the effect that the location of this roadway could have on
the development potential of the northern half of the Salverda land. The specific
alignment of this road would be determined at the time his land was sold and a
development proposal is reviewed.
3. The Kehr-Borgstrom-Salverda 34 unit development will add approximately 51 new
residents, generate between 210 and 235 total traffic movements (in and out); and add an
estimated $5.1 million in new housing development.
----
~/
JJ
41
:)
G'V o.
J.J.Nno:)
c::J 0
I I
I I
I I.-, - - - - - - ." ."
'>:L ....... -. - .
I ,------- . . ".
I ~ . .' .
I I ,..- -..
" E,lJTURE ......' ...
//; \
, ,
"" ~ /
_ ~ r
" (
..
~
c
.
Q
~
~o
LAND USE/CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES
EXHIBIT 3: SCALE 1"-200'
KEHR, BORGSTROM AND SALVERDA No
PLUS FUTURE STREET CONNECTIONS
---...-
Exhibit 3
1. Exhibit 3 adds the Salverda Property. John Shardlow has met with Leonard Salverda,
who has indicated his support for the change. He has submitted a letter indicating his
support (actually the land is in his mother's name).
2. When the Salverda parcel is developed, the street connection to Dale Street must be
l'.nndn1NPñ Mr ~"1vprrl,, nnrler!'ltands the need for this connection. but. he is
,
I I ! ¡ !
, . ,. ]~
I
¡
1
I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
. I
I ·
. I
, I
I
l j
!--
: .
i
51-0.
~
o
z
c:
i:
m
,
L-~
CD
-
I
.þ
.
I
-
- ..
.........
) ~iti . }_ _w \ 1 r :I~ J. .. ...~ :fït
... ~~.~~~ -\~~; ,1 "'~ ' A.L~~·"~_ "", .'"
~ \ .!s: - - ~ ../" ,Ã) '3¡ ~'
....-- -!g--"'" ·sn..,.n.., ~ jib ../o1Þ ,,~ ". ~5 Z"..
-----. no _ __15.. ------ -:::.1 ~- ,/ I..\s ~I'"
~ '''' ..... .... _~ lit. ,,~ :"':'::". ..-:, .:If~!i ~ 1_." ~/I;< I ~:- . ..::::
~ __.... -'. 1IC4-........ ._"---'"';'-. ~ t AU. 1.-- -....... __., . . ____ .
r"':'" . -, -...,..: '... ,.' \\ ~ ,,--
II. ( I::'?j;ì\\ ;!.f'\' rr'.: L ~I 4.. ..... ,~\'~ . i'~ /' ~r' \, I
C-...... . l' ~ -.. H'_ <,,-<... / ~... .... -...... 1
~'~~I·· ' . ~I:g~~' ~~'fi \ . .1..... .:1:- J.....·1~· -", . J.- ~: ~,:~~ ~~ J \
. ~.:_~ ~~ "f...-///n/.. ~~L). ~'~~r;ir~ !~- -.. [a'~'···:I·.:;'-··c \}'.J- r-L.
: ."'. 'P\ J i . . ·"ti~l· ../
f · --"~: j.l. .......\- " a I .. '. \. -';j:1t,i 1 I . l··;"':·'-:(:ïE .,t,. ,.. i··~"· . I ---
[I 1. (r~. Ii' ;hi. ! - r-' ·..·'{~·::.;;7 . \ l/ l ¡II
.'! .:~U/l·.·/····--'."'~]···· rr-¡ I r¡ ), .....,. .'. ..;.:~~ \"1 ~~.JY A.:.::<.:~""'f'~~:\I·i')frïr \I Ii t '''-I··
.!.. It . c. :.:,:.':'.,. .... ~ ..~~.L ~ . -=-. ::~'. 'IC">", .I' \0
-" .. .....,..... I ) .."'-'" 'I I . .. '. ~ ,
/ I &~. '/../ ., .. '~':6' .. . '-' ~
: .j J! \·/~~·~fZ.:·· ::? : - V ./. . / ¡ il ( I.·~.·.ii.?·!.·· I
\ ;'1: \.:. ~ Ie/.' .........1 J L ..~.!'~~~ . ... .... ..
. . ...... ~../ L . :' "".~:. ".. . 1./
::: ",¡;, = 'õi'-, V li%~~~ -, l-,"~ ::: ~.1~2I.m/.. #' ~
( 7 J. '/)/lJt..ªI..~ I :,. ,,( .-- -\ !/ .~'4~~;r.· ~ / /
, 1-:'.( J/ Ii / $! . 'J . J'" . I
" /;J//~~__ ;~ 1~t· '¡ I
.
,
I
~ J:I"
(11't--~~u" ^ \.. ( . ""\'"\. '."\ ~
i ~. I'..~" ......... \ ~., ""'." / \ ~...! ....
", \\ Ii '\. .. \ "'., · .' '\.. >t:' /' .... .. '". L V·- I .I ~ ~
..,
. ~.~.
f' --.. \'-f.~ ,:,-,,=' . . ',.:/c. L;;:;:. 1/ 0'~ /' ~
- -) ~-~5 \""~..._-_~ :')..__-- ..////~//'~~~~~/./
~\../ ~ ~-r-. . ---- .,;..- -- ~./ /' ::/: .~'.(//~/ / / /
"J ~.. )} ,--__--- ~/;:/ //////~v / / "
.. <r //~~ ;::~ :/;:/~/'l_.V//1/E
"
(
\
)
I
'1
>-
o
~
-,
!.