My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-04-06_PC_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2016 Agendas
>
2016-04-06_PC_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/8/2016 4:33:43 PM
Creation date
4/8/2016 4:33:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
142
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
Regular Planning CommissionMeeting <br />Minutes –Wednesday, March 2, 2016 <br />Page 9 <br />Ms. Evler confirmed that path and noted a tree house had even been built at one point. <br />401 <br />Ms. Evler advised that this was one of the reasons they’d bought their home because <br />402 <br />they thought there would be land for their children to play in.Ms. Evler stated her <br />403 <br />preference for a wooded area for kids to play versus urban development surrounding <br />404 <br />them. <br />405 <br />Member Daire asked Ms. Evler if she was aware of people using the proposed <br />406 <br />development property as a park. <br />407 <br />Ms. Evler responded that she didn’t think they technically considered a park, but she <br />408 <br />noted newer neighbors used the property to dump leaves, while older neighbors used it <br />409 <br />as a play area.Ms. Evler stated that she saw their home backing up to a wooded area in <br />410 <br />which her children could play, rather than having the property all developed with huge <br />411 <br />homes looking down on their home. <br />412 <br />Anne Caldon, 710 Wheaton Avenue <br />413 <br />Ms. Caldon noted that when moving into this neighborhood, they were well aware this <br />414 <br />area could be developed since it was private land even though it hadn’t been developed <br />415 <br />for a considerable amount of time.Ms. Caldon expressed her appreciation with the work <br />416 <br />the city did to obtain the best possible plan to develop these private lots; and spoke in <br />417 <br />support of the proposed request.While admitting she and her family would love to see <br />418 <br />the property remain openland and with the cul-de-sac, Ms. Caldon realistically <br />419 <br />acknowledged that it was private land available for development. <br />420 <br />Roger Sadecki, 667 County Road C <br />421 <br />Mr. Sadecki spoke in support of the roadway being straight and of 32’ width in <br />422 <br />consideration of everything.Mr. Sadecki questioned the rationale in having two curves <br />423 <br />within such a short stretch, and opined even on paper id didn’t look correct.Mr. Sadecki <br />424 <br />further opined that Wheaton Avenue didn’t go anywhere, and therefore should allow for a <br />425 <br />32’ width and questioned if speeders would use it since it didn’t go anywhere. <br />426 <br />Mr. Sadecki referenced comments at a previous meeting and mention of 687 Wheaton <br />427 <br />Avenue residents having a problem with drainage.Mr. Sadecki noted they weren’t the <br />428 <br />only ones with a drainage problem, with several properties in the area experiencing <br />429 <br />drainage issues, including his and that of his neighbor, opining that that area was like a <br />430 <br />big lake in the spring. <br />431 <br />Mr. Sadecki questioned when these plans were available on the city website, noting that <br />432 <br />until then, neither he nor anyone else would have been aware of everything proposed by <br />433 <br />the developer.If the developer plans an infiltration pond in the adjacent backyards, <br />434 <br />including his, Mr. Sadecki opined that he didn’t get it since ponds were already in place at <br />435 <br />the cul-de-sac and questioned how it would solve any problems in the spring when those <br />436 <br />ponds were frozen and allowed no infiltration. <br />437 <br />Specific to the homes on Dale Street serving as a buffer, Mr. Sadecki noted the existence <br />438 <br />of a huge buffer already in place on the other side of Dale Street with tennis courts and <br />439 <br />apartments; and opined there was no need for another buffer with minimum-sized lots <br />440 <br />and homes built into the hillside.Mr. Sadecki also questioned the proposed retaining wall <br />441 <br />planned due to the steep slope. <br />442 <br />While not being against development, Mr. Sadecki stated that he wasn’t too thrilled about <br />443 <br />this whole development and expressed his preference to retain the wooded area behind <br />444 <br />his home. <br />445 <br />Regarding the 12’ easements, Mr. Sadecki statedthat he wasn’t familiar with what that <br />446 <br />meant and questioned where they would be located.Mr. Sadecki advised that, if they <br />447 <br />were intended in his back yard and for an infiltration pond to accumulate water, he <br />448 <br />considered that an eyesore for his backyard.While having asked at the December 17, <br />449 <br />2015 open house if the grading for these proposed homes would match existing homes, <br />450 <br />Mr. Sadecki noted that now he saw an infiltration pond in his back yard. <br />451 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.