2014_04_10_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Thursday, April 10, 2014 Page 4 option for multi-family housing rather than the neighborhood’s preference for it to remain 141 single-family residential. 142 Mr. Paschke noted that Mr. Lloyd’s presentation indicated that the proposed subdivision 143 could meet LDR-1 requirements for a minimum lot width of 85’; however the rationale for 144 suggesting LDR-2 zoning was to configure the lots to not only be consistent with 145 surrounding and adjacent properties, but also to allow for improving storm drainage on 146 the development property as well as the broader neighborhood. Mr. Paschke noted that 147 there was enough land to meet LDR-1 requirements, including the existing lots of Mr. 148 Metz and his neighbors. 149 Mr. Lloyd noted that the developer is proposing single-family homes as noted in the 150 report; but noted that the LDR-2 zoning would also allow for twin homes or duplexes; and 151 at some point in the future if and when these proposed homes were demolished, they 152 could be replaced by twin homes or duplexes. However, Mr. Lloyd noted that was the 153 case with many other parcels throughout the community. 154 Sheila Metz, 320 County Road B West 155 Ms. Metz requested a proposed timeline for construction, and if the neighbors could 156 expect a “loud” summer. Ms. Metz also requested information on what was proposed for 157 the existing historic little house and windmill on the site. 158 Mr. Paschke opined that the proposal for all existing structures was for their removal. Mr. 159 Paschke noted that the Roseville Fire Department was working with the developer for a 160 burn exercise on the structure, with the rubble moved to a construction recycling site or 161 landfill. While not aware of the historic value of the house from the City’s perspective, 162 even though it is on an historic trail, Mr. Paschke advised that the structures didn’t have 163 any historical significance articulated under national historic preservation laws. 164 If the windmill is planned for demolition, Ms. Metz asked that she be allowed to move it to 165 her property. Ms. Metz noted that several well-known artists had used the windmill as a 166 model in their artwork; and speaking for herself and most of her neighbors, they wanted 167 the windmill to stay where it belonged. 168 Mr. Paschke suggested Ms. Metz work with the developer to salvage and/or relocate the 169 windmill. 170 Regarding the timing of the development, Mr. Paschke advised that it would be 171 predicated on when plans were finalized, approved and permitted; and suggested the 172 applicant respond to the proposed timeline from their perspective. 173 At the request of Chair Gisselquist, a representative of the applicant came forward to 174 respond. 175 Grant Johnson, Re/Max Results, representing Developer J. W. Moore 176 Regarding the timeline, Mr. Johnson advised that they hoped to begin construction early 177 this summer and move into the fall. Mr. Johnson advised that the Fire Department had 178 proposed a date in May for removal of the existing structures. 179 Mr. Paschke noted, and the developer’s representative confirmed, that the intent was for 180 a mass grading of the site. 181 Member Boguszewski encouraged the developer to work with residents to pursue an 182 alternate location for the windmill. 183 Ron Nacey, 2125 William Street 184 Mr. Nacey sought clarification on whether “double housing” meant it was being proposed 185 now or could be in the future. 186 Mr. Lloyd reiterated that the developer’s proposal was for single-family homes; and the 187 only reason twin homes or duplexes came up in tonight’s discussion was to transparently 188 note that LDR-2 zoning parameters would allow for them. However, Mr. Lloyd again 189 stated that they were not included as part of this proposed development. 190