My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_0421_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2014
>
2014_0421_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2014 1:43:38 PM
Creation date
4/17/2014 2:45:46 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
135
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
Attachment E <br />9� with the rubble moved to a construction recycling site or landfill. While not aware of the historic value of <br />97 the house from the City's perspective, even though it is on an historic trail, Mr. Paschke advised that the <br />98 structures didn't have any historical significance articulated under national historic preservation laws. <br />99 If the windmill is planned for demolition, Ms. Metz asked that she be allowed to move it to her property. <br />1oG Ms. Metz noted that several well-known artists had used the windmill as a model in their artwork; and <br />10 i speaking for herself and most of her neighbors, they wanted the windmill to stay where it belonged. <br />102 Mr. Paschke suggested Ms. Metz work with the developer to salvage and/or relocate the windmill. <br />103 Regarding the timing of the development, Mr. Paschke advised that it would be predicated on when plans <br />104 were finalized, approved and permitted; and suggested the applicant respond to the proposed timeline <br />105 from their perspective. <br />10E At the request of Chair Gisselquist, a representative of the applicant came forward to respond. <br />107 Grant Johnson, Re/Max Results, representing Developer J. W. Moore <br />108 Regarding the timeline, Mr. Johnson advised that they hoped to begin construction early this summer and <br />109 move into the fall. Mr. Johnson advised that the Fire Department had proposed a date in May for removal <br />11G of the existing structures. <br />111 Mr. Paschke noted, and the developer's representative confirmed, that the intent was for a mass grading <br />11 �� of the site. <br />113 Member Boguszewski encouraged the developer to work with residents to pursue an alternate location for <br />11c the windmill. <br />115 Ron Nacey, 2125 William Street <br />116 Mr. Nacey sought clarification on whether "double housing" meant it was being proposed now or could be <br />117 in the future. <br />11� Mr. Lloyd reiterated that the developer's proposal was for single-family homes; and the only reason twin <br />11� homes or duplexes came up in tonight's discussion was to transparently note that LDR-2 zoning <br />12C; parameters would allow for them. However, Mr. Lloyd again stated that they were not included as part of <br />12° this proposed development. <br />12� At the request of Mr. Nacey, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the City's HRA had nothing to do with this proposed <br />12� development. <br />124 Mike Metz <br />12� Mr. Metz questioned if a variance could be granted and the property remain LDR-1 zoning, since staff had <br />12� stated that many LDR-1 lots would be considered LDR-2 today. <br />12i Mr. Lloyd responded affirmatively; but clarified that those lots may fail to meet minimum lot requirements, <br />128 since most were pre-existing from the City's original 1959 zoning code, and variance could be possible to <br />12� allow for smaller lots. However, Mr. Lloyd opined that it wouldn't be a very good solution, as the variance <br />13C tool was meant to get to desired ends when other options failed; and were strictly regulated by recently <br />13+� revised state law. <br />13� Mr. Metz spoke in support of allowing the development through a variance, and retaining zoning as LDR- <br />133 1 to meet the aesthetics and lot sizes of neighbors, while avoiding the possibility of higher density. <br />134 Mr. Lloyd reiterated that the lot size and arrangement is not the only reason for the proposed LDR-2 <br />135 zoning, but also in order to relocate drainage easements to provide better function of that storm water <br />13� management than currently existed, which relied on the narrower lot width requirements on Lots 1, 2, 3 <br />137 and 4 coming up Farrington to site that storm water infrastructure while remaining consistent with existing <br />13� lot sizes in the neighborhood. <br />139 No one else appeared to speak; Chair Gisselquist closed Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. <br />14C� MOTION <br />141 Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Stellmach to recommend to the City Council <br />142 APPROVAL of the proposed REZONING, EASEMENT VACATION, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT of the <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.