Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />CASE NUH~ER: <br />APPLICANr: <br /> <br />1511-84 <br />Patnck Goff <br /> <br />Pase 2 <br /> <br />stubs into the property at the aouthwelt corner. From that point a 30 <br />foot wide private street !System. will make a circle through the prop~rty <br />providlng access to the units, 16 of which ",ill be oriented toward the <br />pond on the west and the south of the property. <br /> <br />Ro.e Pbce 1rlhich you know is platted but not bui1~ from Fern"'ood to <br />Lexington Avenue, is proposed to be vac.ted as it relates to thi. portion <br />of the slte. At the appropriate time, if this development i. approved. <br />the Council Illay wish to vacate Rose Place in its entirety from. Fernwood <br />Street to the cul-de-sac proposed 1n the Jones development to the e.st. <br />The vacation of Rose Place as you know has been support,d by neighbor. in <br />the area who prefer to remain oriented to the cul-de....cs aI they now <br />exilt. <br /> <br />With respect to the vAcation of Rose Place, the engineering Departt\Ulnt <br />recommends th.t the City maintain an ea.ement over the vacated Ro.e Place <br />for utility purposes which partially exist today. Also, a drainage <br />ea.ement should be provided for that portion of the property covered by <br />ponding. The Engineering Department alto suggesU that the cul-de-uc <br />.hould be constructed as a part of the proposed develupment either by <br />petition for a public improvement project to be done by the City, or being <br />done by the applicant" then turned over to tbe Clty. <br /> <br />4. The development proposal adhere. to all the zon1ng requirement.~ and the <br />utilitiel concept as proposed in the gradlng and utility plan. i. <br />workable. <br /> <br />5. We have suggested to the applicants that they ducuu the proposal with <br />neighbors in the area so they may be better informed of the proposal prior <br />to the Planning CommlSsion hearing. We underatand that soue of the <br />neighbors ate in favor and some of them are not in fav~~ due principally <br />to the additional traffic that might be generated by tb~ JevelopQtnt. <br /> <br />The duplex development approved some 12-14 "ears ago would have had nine <br />lots with 18 units, while the Goff propoul .'tows 23 townhouse unitt, th'\, <br />the current proposal has five additional UI\"ts. Obviously, five more <br />unit. will generate additional traffic. There are ~i8ht additional lot. <br />fronting on the Fernwood Street cul-de~8a( Vir.u~lly all of thi. traffic <br />will access from Oakcrest WhlCh, of cour' ~ proceeds easterly to Lexington <br />and westerly to Hamline. However, Oakcrest does not extend beyond these <br />Itreets, and thus. is limited to one-half mile 1n length, thus the traffic <br />on this street though it will increas~, is Slgnificantly leu than many <br />residentlal streets in the City. <br /> <br />6. Whether located on this site or not, we suggest that townhouse units <br />Illanaged by an association as proposed here a~e 1n ahort .upply in <br />Rosevll1e. Roseville res1dentlal development consists primarily of single <br />family homes and apartments (rental and condominium~). There i. a strong <br />market throughout the Metropolitan Area for townhouses oriented to the <br />empty nesters whereln the children have left home, and the large single <br />f&mily house becomes a maintenance problem. We see thu phenomena <br />occurring in many metropolitan communities, and of course, nation-wide. <br />