2003_0915_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Impervious coverage for the proposed development, including the existing home 3 is estimated at 25,113 sq. ft or 23.6% of the net developable land area ( 106,359 4 sq. ft). A single family residential development of 4 to 6 lots 5 Thomas Paschke illustrated photos of the site and the proposed 20} pride private 7 drive. 8 9 Member Peper asked for details of the retaining wall adjacent to the driveway. 10 I I Thomas Paschke explained a letter of opposition from adjoining property owners 12 and an email supporting the project (Salene, August 5, 2003). 13 Bob Loser, developer for the l ogg proposal, stated he has held meetings with 14 the neighbors on the site. The plan changed based on their input, including 15 limiting the height to one story and increasing the setback from the east property 16 line to 30 feet. He explained the new retaining walls proposed along the 17 driveway. An excavation limits diagram was explained. Utility plans for sewer 18 and water were illustrated, along with storm. water run -off. Grass Lake watershed 19 must approve the plans. A tree plan was illustrated; 20 trees would be removed. 0 He said the project was sensitive and complimentary to the site. The units would 1 be 1400 — 1850 s.f, The units will be 26 feet, with a roof slope of 8112. From the 2 back half of the units, water would run to the merest. 23 24 Bob Moser explained drainage from neighbors across from the Mogg property 5 with no disruption of the neighbor's drainage. 7 Member Peper asked if the private street roust accommodate a fire truck in the g cul -de -sac. Thomas Paschke explained this is short and has been reviewed by the fire marshal. 30 31 Member Bakeman asked if the staff recommendation were acceptable (yes). 3 33 Thomas Paschke explained the flexibility needed for porches and patios, allowing 34 reduction of the needs for changes to the PUD. 3 36 Deter Pangbom, 2615 Cohansey, asked fQr clarification of traffic generation; how 37 many single family lots would be allowed (4 to 6 lots, with up to 5% impervious 38 per tot). He asked for clarification of run off management and asked why such 39 construction would occur to the treed areas. Does the pond require removal of 40 trees? (watershed will make that determination). 41 42 Chris Eger, 2615 Cohansey, spoke in opposition to the change in the plan* She 43 referred to Section 9 of the Comprehensive Plan — park section regarding 44 acquiring land for Central Park. There is little green space left in Roseville. This 45 is not a dilemma in Roseville alone (Burnsville, St. Paul). Add this parcel to the 46 park system. A copy of comments was distributed.