Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />Pagett <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />Wednesday, May 18, 1988 <br /> <br />Don Tschida, 1888 County Road C2, testified that he liked the <br />alternative plan to leave in the single family residential use on <br />the south side of C2. Tschida also commented that he would like <br />to see business located further south away from the single family <br />residential and that there be no high density multi-family west <br />of Langton Lake. <br /> <br />Gisvold inquired if a financial study has been done to see if the <br />high cost of implementing the plan could be met. Waldron pointed <br />out that multiple studies have been done which indicated that <br />based on past Roseville experience, most of the redevelopment is <br />feasible based on the use of tax increment financing. <br /> <br />Lan Laskow, 1970 Brenner, expressed concern that the development <br />of apartments west of Langton Lake would set a precedent which <br />would result in apartments being developed further north. Laskow <br />also commented that the mUlti-family proposed would have a <br />negative impact on Langton Lake Park, and would prefer no multi- <br />family development adjacent to the park. <br /> <br />Nancy Knutsen, 1890 Brenner, indicated her concern about multi- <br />family development adjacent to Langton Lake Park. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the Public Hearing. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that the message concerning apartments has been <br />clear and that she opposed the proposed apartments adj acent to <br />Langton Lake Park because it was an intrusion into the park. <br /> <br />Maschka stated that townhouse development would be more <br />appropriate then apartments and that the proposed new road should <br />be re-aligned to reduce the impact on the single-family <br />neighborhood to the north. <br /> <br />Goedeke inquired about the impact of the amended plan on the <br />proposed indoor park. Bob Bierscheid, Director of Park and <br />Recreation, testified that the indoor park was not an integral <br />part of the plan and that in his opinion the critical issues are <br />the protection of Langton Lake and Oasis Park and the development <br />of a trailway system through the area. <br /> <br />Moeller indicated that he was not comfortable with eliminating <br />all of the multi-family housing from the plan. <br /> <br />DeBenedet expressed concern about the building mass and the close <br />proximity of the mUlti-family uses to Langton Lake. Phil Carlson <br />commented that the closest mUlti-family building would be 200 <br />feet from Langton Lake and that the park land around the lake <br />