My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_0828
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_0828
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:40:38 AM
Creation date
9/12/2006 8:22:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/28/2006
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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 />My primary areas of concern with this project are: <br /> <br />I. Twin Home/Quad Homes, Bob Moser stated at the July 27, 2006 neighborhood <br />meeting, that the Twin and Quad units would be developed in partnership with the <br />HRA Price points for these units would be 200-250K. <br /> <br />This contradicts staffs report that the Twin/Quad units will be marketed toward <br />"empty nesters" <br /> <br />The Twin/Quad component of the redevelopment could be dropped, replacing the <br />six units with three single family units at much higher price points. Look to the <br />single family development at Oakcrest and Hamline, three of the SF homes sold <br />for over well over $500K and one sold for $489K. <br /> <br />If Roseville pursues this higher level of density, within established low density <br />neighborhoods, and contrary to its long range plan. How then, will the city deter <br />someone from applying the same standards, given to the Mounds View site, to <br />their property? The property I own at 2932 Hamline is about 43,800sf, just short <br />of an acre. I could develop 6 Town Home units with price points of350-400K. <br />Would this be good for Roseville? <br /> <br />If the Twin/Quad component must be retained, at the very least it should be shifted <br />to the western edge of the site where it would abut two existing twin homes. <br /> <br />2. At the May 30, 2006 neighborhood meeting, Bob Moser stated that the single <br />family component of the development would meet all established setback <br />requirements. This is not the case with the plat before you. <br />Staffs report states that "the proposal contains lot sizes and uses that are no <br />different than those within the surrounding community." Lot setbacks for this <br />proposal have been reduced to accommodate the higher density. Front yard <br />setbacks for the single family homes have been reduced from 30ft to 25ft. The <br />twin homes front yard setbacks have been reduced from 30ft to 22ft. This is of <br />great concern for safety, at the intersection of Lydia and Hamline. Side yard <br />setbacks for all units have been reduced from lOft to 5ft. These reduced setbacks <br />are not at all "consistent" with the "surrounding area." <br /> <br />3. The water table in this area is quite high. The units or lots that are placed along <br />Hamline will very likely have to be "filled" thus raising the overall height of the <br />structures. What will the finished "Peak" elevation above the current established <br />grade be? <br /> <br />4. With the redevelopment of the Hamline Shopping center site, does Roseville need <br />more senior housing (twin/quad homes) in this area? <br /> <br />5. This developments density / character, contradicts the report prepared in May of <br />2005 by the HRA titled, "Community Dialogues on Housing". <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.