Laserfiche WebLink
<br />121'1/92 16:45 <br /> <br />DSU, INC. <br /> <br />..¡...¡...¡. ROSEVILLE <br /> <br />141 001 <br /> <br />, ., <br /> <br />I)AlILf;RF,N' <br />SI lJ\RJJIJ )\¡V <br />I\J\JI)· tJBl\N <br /> <br />¡="'=UI~;:·t' J::A~t t::' <br /> <br />CONSBi.TING PLANNE.RS <br />LAl'\iDSCAPE ARCHITECTS <br />,;ÚO FIRST A\¡'EmJE NORTH <br />SUITE Z 10 ' <br />MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 <br />61.2-339'::;,:;00 <br /> <br />---.-.-- <br /> <br />r--RQM:' - <br /> <br />Craig Wahhon <br />Phll-càÏÏsö~ DSU;,]'rf~--··' <br /> <br /> <br />lofpages ... L <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />Co.. <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />21 December 1992 <br /> <br />, PtJone# <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Fø# <br /> <br />-'---~J <br /> <br />~-'._._---,'. . -- ... <br /> <br />.."_ ...._--"-... .___._~_.n <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />RE: PadaidgeEStates PUD/Rev:ísed Plans <br /> <br />When we met last week with Äi ~ and his architects rega:rding the Parkridge Estates PUD, MI. <br />Kehr offered a revised site pm: shoWing 26 units, instead of the preVious 28 units. There were also <br />modifications to the landscape pIan to screen neighboring properties. and enhance each entry~ While <br />the~e revision.~ improved some asPects of the project, they created other problems which I believe to <br />be "far;] I flaws" in the design: eWe did not have the opportnriiiy at tI$ meeting to revîewthe project <br />in detail and analyze all its implications. Having bad the chance to look at the project in the 1ast few <br />days I want you to be a.ware of some- serious conçems I have with"this latest plan. There may be <br />other issues as the project is furthèr-refined. The two issues of concern so fm' are: <br /> <br />1) Internal S~aång V~ The distance betWéëIi.:1Ìnits facing each other in the revised <br />plan is about 35'. which is not adequate for this situation. The ~ setback in a !ñm1Ì::n- sitnation <br />for single-family homes (rear yard to rear yatd) is 60'; the sëtóaCk-shown in the previously submitted <br />~-1JD1t plan is 50'. This is aÎL 8bso1nte minimum and I believe we shou1d not recommend approval of <br />a project with anything less t:hän a 50' dimen!rion. (At our meetiµg, I read this dimension as 46'; in <br />fÆ:t,. it was labelled 35.46'. an example of why we carinot gíve finnrecommendations having had one <br />iookata plan around)hetabIe)~ <br /> <br />2) . Stonil Pomling.. The 28-unit pIan had. shown on-~ ponding in the miñðle of the site. Èven <br />though. we_.si1ggested that the units were too close to the proposed ponding area, there was enough <br />room to physically acconttnoWite the stoIm water.. In the revised 26-:unît pIan, there is even less open <br />space internally, making it very unlikely that stoIm ponding cotÙd be ~ommodated on site at an.. <br />Mr.. K.ehI:indicates he wants .tøpursue an off-site solution, but I want to mak6ít clear that the two <br />plans are not equalin regard to the ability to handle on-site poJidingrin· case tbë off-site project does <br />nøtwork. ' <br />- --Y:;;. <br />