pf_01830 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Gerald Kaufhold, Case 0. 1830 Page 2 which is in excess of 10%. This land could be used for a hockey rink area and Mr. Kaufhold would donate $15,000 to help defray, the cost to move the rink, lights, and warming house from the present location on the site." 3. This proposal was reviewed with the applicant's architect, Tom Dunwell, on February 17, 1988. Mr. Dunwell announced that they now "have no choice but to divide the southerly portion of the site into ten single-family ots". We noted that because the City had turned down two proposals involving business zoning across the entire north of the site, that it does not mean that a solution other than single-family lots on a major portion of the site is the only alternative. There remain •options for developing this site with less area in business use and including well planned multi -family housing developments, institutional uses, and open space which is considered by many to be an important ingredient in the overall park system serving the City of Roseville. 4. A significant part of the problem with the current proposal is that it does not constitute a total solution for the site. The development of single-family homes on portions of the site without planning, for and determining the use of the remainder on a permanent basis could be a major mistake. We are simply exposing new residences of the City of Roseville (in the ten proposed lots) to possible and future unknown business development that would be immediately contiguous to their properties. In other words, we seem to be making the environmental concerns and the compatibility issues greater in the future. We suggest that it is not wise planning to do this on purpose. 5. We noted that the City has a right to pursue its interest in maintaining a portion of the site as a part of its original and existing park system plan. Because two development proposals were turned down involving unacceptable business land use proposals, does not mean that the City advocates its need or desire for the retention of portions of this land as a functional neighborhood park. Obviously, the development of a portion of this land for single-family purposes is not the "highest and best use" for the property under the circumstances. It appears to be a solution where "everybody loses". What we are looking for is a solution where "everybody wins". 6. The proposed park dedication in the plat is for an area of 350.5 feet (east -west dimension) by 115.39 feet (north -south). This proposed park area is landlocked and accessible via a proposed 10.5 foot access to Eldridge Avenue. Never in our experience had we found a City to pro- ose or except such a landlocked parcel for park purposes. 7. In summary, the park proposed represents poor park planning because: a) b) c) d) e) It is almost totally landlocked; It is too small to be efficiently and effectively used to serve the neighborhood needs; The site has poor visibility from public streets and, therefore, is difficult to patrol and supervise and will constitute a public safety hazard; Such a small, isolated park will be expensive to maintain; Such a small and overused park will be an adverse influence on the visibility of the contiguous single-family lots; snd