Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 1 of2 <br /> <br />Paschke, Thomas <br /> <br />From: Paschke, Thomas <br /> <br />Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:59 AM <br /> <br />To: 'Lois Forsblad' <br /> <br />Subject: RE: Lexington/Roselawn Development <br /> <br />Dear Ms. Forsblad; thank you for your inquiry. The reason the proposal has been sent back to the Planning <br />Commission is the original General Concept Plan for which a public hearing and recommendation was made by <br />the Planning Commission on March 6, 2002, has been dramatically revised. Specifically, the new proposal places <br />the office building approximately 70 feet from Lexington and 50 feet from Roselawn. Further, the on-site parking <br />is proposed in the front adjacent both streets. Lastly the structure has increased from two stories to three <br />stories. Under the City Code minor changes can be accepted, however major amendments require a hearing and <br />consideration by the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />It is my understanding that the property owners past (Bruce Kath) and Present (Accessible Space Inc.) have <br />completed environmental assessments of the site. I do not recall the specific types of tests, but recall that soil <br />borings have been taken and analyzed. It is my understanding that the tests found no hazardous waste. As for <br />building limitations, I believe the developers want to disturb the site as little as possible. However, I am not <br />aware of any development limitations due to contamination. <br /> <br />Accessible Space, Inc. has received subsidies from the county and federal government for this project. <br />However, I do not know the specific process they went through to receive said funding, nor do I know what type <br />of commitment is required. It is my understanding that the structure must remain supportive housing for a <br />specified time, offering special housing for low income disabled individuals. <br /> <br />The office building (structure only) would cover 45% of the lot under the first proposal and roughly 15% of the <br />lot in the second proposal. The supportive housing building would cover 23% of the lot in either proposal. The <br />Cryogenic development covered roughly 2/3 of the site with building. Please note the the City Code does not <br />have a lot coverage requirement. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission meeting begins at 6:30 and this item is the first hearing on the agenda. If you have <br />further questions, please remit them to my attention. <br /> <br />Thomas <br /> <br />-----Original Message----- <br />From: Lois Forsblad [mailto:LFPage1057@msn.com] <br />Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:42 PM <br />To: thomas.paschke@ci.roseville.mn.us <br />Subject: Lexington/Roselawn Development <br /> <br />Mr. Paschke <br /> <br />As a resident of 1057 Harriet Lane, Roseville, Mn ( Town Homes) I just want to inform you that their are <br />concerns from myself and my neighbors regarding this planned development. <br /> <br />The concerns are: <br /> <br />1. Why this issue has again been turned back to the Planning Commission? <br /> <br />2. Concerns regarding the ground contamination. What tests have been performed? What the reports <br />found? What if any limitation there are for development due to present contamination? <br /> <br />3. If the housing unit is Federally subsidized now, what is the long term picture? What qualification did it <br />have to meet in order to receive the subsidy? <br /> <br />05/02/2002 <br />