My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_010411
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2001
>
pm_010411
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:35:58 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 8:04:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
4/11/2001
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />a balance; the orange concept does not preclude other concepts. <br /> <br />Member Rhody noted a major recreation center would create traffic issues. There is need for a swimming pool in <br />the community. <br /> <br />Member Duncan noted that the green concept has church expansion possibilities (Covenant Church). <br /> <br />Member Cunningham found that the pond is in poor condition. Could the pond be cleaned up sooner. What is the <br />time line for redevelopment. <br /> <br />Deb Bloom, Assistant Public Works Director, noted that the pond is a DNR protected pond that will be used for <br />water storage. The pond should be upgraded into an amenity. The pond is not in the capital improvement program. <br /> <br />Member Olson found that the orange concept has some merit, but has concerns with the isolation of the park by <br />new homes. <br /> <br />The Arona site is the "back" of everybody's existing project. The yellow concept backed new development adjacent <br />to existing development and reduced the pavement. The park in the orange concept becomes a neighborhood <br />park. Perhaps there is a "middle" design between the yellow and orange concepts. <br /> <br />Lloyd Dewey, 2922 N. Simpson, expressed concern that the blue concept was a "replace what was there" concept. <br />Coventry and Centennial Garden apartments have children who walk or bike to this site. The pond should be <br />improved. <br /> <br />No further comments were offered. <br /> <br />b. Planning File 3225: Roseville Mobile Home Park: Sketch Plan/ReviewlDiscussion <br /> <br />Chairman Rhody opened the topic discussion and asked Thomas Paschke to introduce the topic. <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke introduced the project. <br /> <br />Gary Wrobel, Roseville Mobile Home Park Coordinator, explained moving RVs and adding four new double-wides. <br />A new playground and landscape plan will be completed. Waste enclosures will be improved. This will clean up the <br />park. <br /> <br />Member Olson asked for details on the RVs and ownerships. <br /> <br />Chair Rhody recommended moving and screening RVs. <br /> <br />Member Mulder found this is a good start, but with the railroad tracks on the north, there should be some screening <br />as viewed from County Road "C". Pines or other conifers would be appropriate. Member Cunningham asked for <br />screening on all sides. <br /> <br />Member Duncan asked what a mobile home costs (used $2,000-$15,000 each; new $15,000 - $30,000 each; <br />$450/month rent). Could more upscale double-wide units be added to the site? <br /> <br />Member Rhody asked if 16' x 80' unit (new) could fit on the existing lot? (no). At this time it is not feasible to take <br />out the smaller units and replace them with double-wide units. <br /> <br />Member Duncan suggested overall rigorous zoning compliance as a good approach to the site. <br /> <br />Member Wilke asked if the managers maintain or encourage clean up of the sites (yes). <br /> <br />Member Cunningham noted that the park has become a close knit neighborhood. Owners take pride in this; he was <br />supportive to improve aesthetics. <br /> <br />Member Olson asked whether one or two parking spaces are allowed. Park requirements are one space per <br />owner. <br /> <br />Member Rhody asked about the economics of the site and relocation costs. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.