2003_1020_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 explained the neighborhood concerns: water in basements, density, sight lines, lighting, wetlands, traffic, and poor soils. He explained neighborhood meetings, reducing the condo from 36 to 30 units to reduce the size of the building, creating 100 feet setback from the east property line. United also met with property owners regarding landscaping that would reduce site lines and impacts with screening. The site lighting will be designed to be contained on the site, with decorative, soft lighting on walls or ground. The wetland would be filled in at some locations but replaced elsewhere on the site. The wetland will be improved in quality, with wetlands that will percolate. The traffic concerns will be insignificant. For water drainage, the water will drain away from existing homes. The developer has offered to place drain tile around the house and include sump pumps. The project does have an agreement with the golf course to use the Country Club parking lot for overflow. He said good reasons for this project: brings a new type of housing to Roseville that will free up single family homes for younger families; the project will contribute to the viability of the Country Club and green space with a high level of architecture. Xcel will light the site, and an extensive landscape plan will be implemented. Member Traynor asked how the drainage plan will work and solve drainage issues for neighbors. Mr. Carey explained the proposed NURP pond (storm capacity) along the south and east property areas. He explained that water would flow west to the Fulham/Roselawn corner, then north along Fulham to a pond in the northwest corner of the site. Chair Mulder asked if there was surface water in the northwest corner (water runs from northeast into the site; the outlet is plugged up). Member Mulder asked what assurance there will be to see that improvements are made beyond the property line (landscaping and sump pumps). United will enter into an agreement with a letter of credit for private improvements. Gerry Foster, 969 Parker, noted in Section 7.2 there is a proof of parking agreement which may be written with the developer — how will this be handled? Thomas Paschke explained proof of parking. Cathy Croughan, 1961 Midland Hills Road, adjacent property owner, asked if traffic numbers could be stated. She also asked about utility easement location shifting. Thomas Paschke explained the easements and what may need to be vacated. Thomas Paschke explained traffic trips as per the staff report. Jerry Dion, 1944 Midland Hills Rd., asked what happens to woods if wetland is created; will homes be looking at back of condo building? Thomas Paschke and Brian Carey explained the tree removal on the site. The landscape plan includes clean up of dead trees, with enhancement along the east property line, with a combination of landscape materials. On average, 30 to 40 feet of planting area along the property line is required. Jerry Dion said the building is 60 feet high, the lilacs are only 10 feet tall, the structure will be visible. Kristine Rogers, 2232 Draper Ave., asked what the city will gain in taxes. Where will the taxes be used? The school bus stops on the side of roads for elementary school only. Chair Mulder said the total property taxes would be approximately $200,000. He explained the distribution between the city, county and school district. The city's share is 40 %. Cathy Robbins, 1961 Midland Hills Road, asked if the northern easement area was to be cut or graded (no cutting there).