pf_03224 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

NOTES ON ROSELA WN VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING JANUARY 24, 2002, ROSEVILLE CITY HALL The best summary of the result of the meeting was at the end, when we were welcomed to the neighborhood as a compatible development ending the uncertainty about the type of redevelopment that would occur, and a welcome successor to the abandoned service station building on the comer. The questions and comments were on these topics: 1. Our direct neighbor at 1064 Roselawn continued to ask us to pull the building back farther to preserve his accustomed long view west across the site and maintain an extensive clear vision triangle at his drive. 2. There were concerns from residents on Roselawn the parking for the offices and apartments is adequate to prevent parking on Roselawn, which while permitted, narrows the street. I think the residents were assured by the interior location of the main entrances to the buildings, the character and patterns of use for the office and apartment tenants, and the ability to informally share spaces. They also noted the problems that occur on Roselawn during deliveries to the hardware store, and were concerned about any restriction of Roselawn during the construction of the development. 3. Once the residents understood the tenants, and confirmed them several times, I think most of their concerns evaporated. As part this we discussed the effect of the proposed rezoning to PUD, its collapse of the permitted commercial uses to only those proposed, and the long term contract nature of the PUD designation. 4. There were a lot of questions about the ASI tenants. Jennifer Samaha, the Director of Programs for ASI, provided a description of the process of selecting tenants, their character and tenancy, the services and programs she would expect to occur at the site, the very special quantities and attractiveness of this site, and the experience and competency of ASI their commitment to have an open and ongoing relationship with the neighbors. 5. After the description of the quality and coordination of the exterior materials and design, there were no questions or suggestions about the detail of the designs or the proposed heights. 6. Lighting was a question. We offered assurances there will be no illuminated freestanding signs (the realty office and hardware store freestanding signs are apparently left on all night and do light up the area), both by our plan and the needs of our tenants. The neighbors want as low a lighting scheme as is safe for tenants and visitors. 7. Pollution hazard was a question. We explained the MPCA supervision of the process, its status, and its role in triggering our closing on the property. Residents especially warned about a tank they were invited to use to recycle motor oil. 8. Phil Fisher, 1899 N. Oxford, whose backyard abuts the pond, didn't object to snow storage in the pond, but asked it be buffered with evergreens. He said we would be welcome to plant on his property to improve the buffer. He likes the black vinyl fence around the back of our property, and suggests 4 ft in height as adequate. He seems to be a leader of the immediate neighbors, and I have mailed him a full set of our plans.