|
Regular Planning Commission Meeting
<br />Minutes – Wednesday, May 1, 2013
<br />Page 8
<br />Mr. Paschke advised that there was nothing in City Code preventing the development of
<br />350
<br />the property, as long as it met zoning document requirements and was determined to be
<br />351
<br />consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Paschke further advised that the design of
<br />352
<br />lots and homes are predicated upon those documents. Mr. Paschke clarified that these
<br />353
<br />were large lots, and were in accordance with the City’s zoning and minimum lot sizes of
<br />354
<br />85 x 110 square feet since 1959, and as long as that lot size was achieved and other
<br />355
<br />requirements met, regardless of surrounding properties, whether behind or adjacent,
<br />356
<br />there were permitted. Mr. Paschke advised that, in Roseville, those designs are minimum
<br />357
<br />standards, and whether consistent with the existing neighborhood where those homes
<br />358
<br />were built less than required on larger lots, with these proposed designs consistent with
<br />359
<br />code requirements.
<br />360
<br />Mr. Hasse opined that the aesthetics should be addressed by the home’s design, not the
<br />361
<br />lot; and further opined that all single-family homes should face the street. Mr. Hasse
<br />362
<br />further questioned the proposed sale price for the homes of $400,000 to $700,000 for
<br />363
<br />townhomes.
<br />364
<br />Mr. Paschke advised that he was unable to confirm the proposed price point of the single
<br />365
<br />family homes, clarifying that they were single-family homes, not townhomes.
<br />366
<br />Jody McElroy, 905 Millwood Avenue
<br />367
<br />Located on the east site of the proposed, development, Ms. McElroy further expounded
<br />368
<br />on her written comments, as submitted. Ms. McElroy noted that this was a close-knit
<br />369
<br />neighborhood, experiencing existing drainage issues. If the proposed development is
<br />370
<br />approved, Ms. McElroy expressed her hope that the neighbors would be included in that
<br />371
<br />drainage plan to protect their properties. Ms. McElroy further addressed current traffic
<br />372
<br />counts on their street, and questioned if the street could support six (6) more homes in
<br />373
<br />the neighborhood, given that high traffic. Ms. McElroy noted that they had two (2) very
<br />374
<br />mature Cottonwood trees on their lot, only 7’ away from the property line, and sought
<br />375
<br />assurances that they would be protected as part of the tree preservation by the
<br />376
<br />developer.
<br />377
<br />Dirk Larson, 922 Millwood
<br />378
<br />As a neighbor directly across the street from this proposed “abomination,” Mr. Larson
<br />379
<br />opined that development of this site was attempted about twenty (20) years ago, with the
<br />380
<br />same proposed cul-de-sac for a multi-family development. Mr. Larson advised that the
<br />381
<br />neighborhood had banded together and formed a committee to fight it at that time as well,
<br />382
<br />and opined that the neighbors would continue to do so.
<br />383
<br />At the request of Chair Gisselquist, Mr. Paschke provided a brief summary of the property
<br />384
<br />ownership, formerly held by George Reiling, who was originally a farmer and typically
<br />385
<br />very frugal and was not prone to develop most of the properties he owned throughout the
<br />386
<br />community.
<br />387
<br />Mr. Larson opined that the property was just a field, a wetland with no decent trees. Mr.
<br />388
<br />Larson advised that, in essence, the neighborhood wanted development, but
<br />389
<br />development that fit in with existing lots, not this abomination. Mr. Larson opined that
<br />390
<br />there was no reason for the proposed number of homes, other than greed, and that the
<br />391
<br />proposed development shouldn’t even be considered.
<br />392
<br />Member Daire sought clarification that Mr. Larson’s preference was for single-family
<br />393
<br />homes with direct driveway access onto Millwood Avenue rather than this proposal.
<br />394
<br />Mr. Larson stated, “absolutely,” and opined that the trouble lay in the developer who
<br />395
<br />couldn’t afford to build fewer homes on that property, since Roseville soils were clay. Mr.
<br />396
<br />Larson stated that the reason for this was that the City was built on a riverbed of the
<br />397
<br />ancient Mississippi River and water continued to seep up into that property, mostly on
<br />398
<br />Ms. McElroy’s at 905 Millwood Avenue, and then seeped out of the ground.
<br />399
<br />Chair Gisselquist and Member Boguszewski questioned why this property had not been
<br />400
<br />developed to-date, and whether that was due to it not being buildable.
<br />401
<br />
<br />
|