Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
• Gerald <br />Kauf hold, Case No. 1830 Page 2 <br />which is in excess of 10%. This land could be used for a <br />hockey rink area and Mr. Kaufhold would donate $15,000 to <br />help defray, the cost to move the rink, lights, and warming <br />house from the present location on the site." <br />3. <br />This proposal was reviewed with the applicant's architect, Tom Dunwell, <br />on February 17, 1988. Mr. Dunwell announced that they now "have no <br />choice but to divide the southerly portion of the site into ten <br />single-family lots". We noted that because the City had turned down <br />two proposals involving business zoning across the entire north of the <br />site, that it does not mean that a solution other than single-family lots <br />on a major portion of the site is the only alternative. There remain <br />-options for developing this site with less area in business use and <br />including well planned multi -family housing developments, institutional <br />uses, and open space which is considered by many to be an important <br />ingredient in the overall park system serving the City of Roseville. <br />4. <br />A significant part of the problem with the current proposal is that it <br />does not constitute a total solution for the site. The development of <br />single-family homes on portions of the site without planning, for and <br />determining the use of the remainder on a permanent basis could be a <br />major mistake. We are simply exposing new residences of the City of <br />Roseville (in the ten proposed lots) to possible and future unknown <br />business development that would be immediately contiguous to their <br />properties. In other words, we seem to be making the environmental <br />concerns and the compatibility issues greater in the future. We suggest <br />that it is not wise planning to do this on purpose. <br />5. <br />We noted that the City has a right to pursue its interest in maintaining <br />a portion of the site as a part of its original and existing park system <br />plan. Because two development proposals were turned down involving <br />unacceptable business land use proposals, does not mean that the City <br />advocates its need or desire for the retention of portions of this land <br />as a functional neighborhood park. Obviously, the development of a <br />portion of this land for single-family purposes is not the "highest and <br />best use" for the property under the circumstances. It appears to be a <br />solution where "everybody loses". What we are looking for is a solution <br />where "everybody wins". <br />6. <br />The proposed park dedication in the plat is for an area of 350.5 feet <br />(east -west dimension) by 115.39 feet (north -south). This proposed park <br />area is landlocked and accessible via a proposed 10.5 foot access to <br />Eldridge Avenue. Never in our experience had we found a City to <br />propose or except such a landlocked parcel for park purposes. <br />7. <br />In summary, the park proposed represents poor park planning because: <br />a) It is almost totally landlocked; <br />b) It is too small to be efficiently and effectively used to serve the <br />neighborhood needs; <br />c) The site has poor visibility from public streets and, therefore, is <br />difficult to patrol and supervise and will constitute a public <br />safety hazard; <br />d) Such a small, isolated park will be expensive to maintain; <br />e) Such a small and overused park will be an adverse influence on <br />the visibility of the contiguous single-family lots; and <br />