pm_880706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Page:#: 4 Wednesday, July 6, 1988 Waldron replied that he was not sure if the Park Board has looked at this particular proposal, but that in one previous proposal the Park Board indicated a desire for cash in lieu of land. Berry questioned how access would be provided to the park. Dunwell responded that it would be provided off of Lexington. DeBenedet asked if the proposed lot #2 would be big enough if this plat were approved and the applicant came back in for further residential sub-division on the north half in the future. Dahlgren replied that lot 2 could be a corner lot which would require that it be 100 ft. wide rather than the proposed 85 ft. Dahlgren added that he can't determine if this is the best sub- division without knowing what the long term use of the entire site would be. Goedeke asked for clarification of development investigated by Dunwell. alternative. the 160 Dunwell unit alternative summarized that Goedeke stated that the proposed dedication would not be usable as a park, only as a buffer. Dunwell responded that it be a passive type park a open space buffer zone with no active recreational programs. Dunwell pointed out that 10% land dedication is required, and that they are exceeding that. Mary Bakeman, 1178 W. County Road B, stated that the zoning pre- dates Roseville incorporation, and that the school and R-1 uses have been there for a long time. Bakeman testified that the park is important to the neighborhood because there are a 1 imi ted number of parks in that area of town, south of County Road B, and west of Dale street. Bakeman communicated her concern about what happens beyond the two year lease when District 916 moves from the site. Bakeman encouraged that commission to preserve the character of the area and turn down this plat because it offers no long term solution for the site. Bakeman read a letter from Thomas Turba, opposition to the proposed plat. indicating his Dave Jaehne, 1175 Eldridge Avenue, indicated his support for residential and park use on the site. Jaehne stated that the city should buy the park land and keep a buffer area to maintain negotiating power in the future to prevent over-development of the site.