pf_02471 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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.