pm_920408 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 1992 Paget 4 Alan Eitsmith stated that this development will change the character of the wildlife pond forever, and that there were no recreation facilities being provided for the future residents of the proposal. Cleat Busse stated that access to the pond should be improved all the way around to benefit others in the area. Nancy Dessert, 700 Roma, stated that the pond is a very special place that should be protected and that only single family residential uses should be allowed around the pond. She also expressed concern that this would set a precedent for other similar development in the area. Fred Rusch, 1761 Alameda, stated that he moved to his house because of the quality of life. Mr. Rusch stated that there has been removal of trees and habitat around the pond already and that the City should protect the existing environment. Mr. Rusch stated that the additional people will adversely affect the environment of the pond and that the proposal was not a quality project. Nancy Wilson, 1791 Alameda, stated that there would be an adverse impact on the pond due to the use of fertilizer and insecticides on the project. MOTION Stokes moved and Goedeke seconded a motion to continue consideration of Heritage Development of Minnesota, Inc.' s request for rezoning from R-I to PUD for the construction of a 30 unit owner occupied townhouse project at 725 W. Larpenteur Avenue to the May 13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant was requested to study further the following: 1. There should be further investigation and discussion with the neighborhood concerning what is an acceptable density on the site. 2. There needs to be further information provided about issues with DNR and other regulations to protect the ponding area. 3. There needs to be further investigation of how to potentially provide additional play areas on the site. Play areas should not encroach on the pond. 4. More detailed design information needs to be provided concerning the proposed retention pond and how this pond would meet DNR guidelines. 5. The issue of snow storage should be addressed. 6. state guidelines concerning setback from protected wetlands ~~Oa ~o >>~ OQ~~~Q~.~d.