2014_04_10_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Thursday, April 10, 2014 Page 7 of the developer to provide greater storm water management controls and other site 295 considerations, it would not be prudent for them to now re-engineer their original plans for 296 single-family residential units on these lots. Mr. Paschke opined that it was important to 297 have some level of trust with any developer in any district; and also advised that it would 298 be highly unlikely that he or Mr. Lloyd would support a variance for this type of situation, 299 as it didn’t meet the test. While a variance may appear on the surfNacey to be a better 300 approach, Mr. Paschke advised that the previous variance laws had changed making 301 them more restrictive with greater testing requirements to allow granting them. While 302 changes can always occur, Mr. Paschke noted that this proposed development fit well 303 into the neighborhood, and LDR-2 zoning achieved the configuration to address and 304 correct storm water drainage issues; while leaving zoning as LDR-1 requiring a different 305 lot configuration would be problematic for a variety of issues as previously outlined by Mr. 306 Lloyd. 307 Member Stellmach stated that he was leaning toward LDR-2, opining that the 308 configuration seemed to match the existing neighborhood and lot sizes, and appeared 309 not to increase density. Member Stellmach expressed his trust that single-family homes 310 would be built and lots configured to meet new drainage management issues in that area. 311 Member Murphy expressed his sympathy for those concerns expressed regarding the 312 future of LDR-2 zoning. However, in his review of the current proposal, and whether or 313 not a variance could be supported, Member Murphy noted that the alternative was for 314 smaller lots under LDR-1 zoning that may mean the construction of 4 or 5 McMansions. 315 Member Murphy opined that the lot size proposed seemed consistent, and he was 316 comfortable supporting the proposal before the Commission. 317 Ayes: 6 318 Nays: 1 (Cunningham) 319 Motion carried. 320 This case is scheduled for consideration by the City Council on April 14, 2014. 321 PLANNING FILE 14-007 b. 322 Request by the City of Roseville to VACATE a pathway easement along the south 323 side of property at 1045 Larpenteur Avenue and replace it with a pathway 324 easement along the north side of Larpenteur Avenue 325 Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 14-002 at 7:29 p.m. 326 City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the request for VACATION of a pathway 327 easement along the south side of the property at 1045 Larpenteur Avenue; with staff 328 recommending approval, as detailed in staff report at the request of the City Attorney and 329 the Public Works Department to correct the easement vacation and dedication for 330 accurate recording purposes. 331 At the request of Chair Gisselquist, Mr. Paschke advised that nothing would happen to 332 the existing property, as the sidewalk was already in place and crossed the property with 333 certain footages on either side. Mr. Paschke clarified that this is currently under 334 negotiation, and this was just a formality, to ensure documents were properly recorded 335 and facilitating approval at the City Council level to subsequently support those actions. 336 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke confirmed that this action should get the 337 accurate easements in place, cautioning that interpretations of surveyors or recorders 338 could vary over time. 339 Chair Gisselquist closed Public Hearing at 7:34 p.m.; no one appeared for or against. 340 MOTION 341 Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Gisselquist to recommend to 342 the City Council APPROVAL of the VACATION of the pathway easement as 343 described on Attachment C at 1045 Larpenteur Avenue; based on the comments 344