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 11 <br />Living in that area, Member Bull stated his familiarity with the area; and stated that he <br />503 <br />was very much in favor of the proposed zoning allowing for buffering of LDR-2 and <br />504 <br />single-family residents from the HDR immediately across the street.Member Bull also <br />505 <br />noted that this provided an opportunity for people to move into single-family homes of <br />506 <br />that nature if they desire to stay in that neighborhood while providing them with additional <br />507 <br />options. <br />508 <br />Member Cunningham expressed her support for the motion for many of the reasons <br />509 <br />already stated by her colleagues.Member Cunningham noted that she was somewhat <br />510 <br />reluctant to change zoning for one particular project, but found the pieces of this project <br />511 <br />prohibiting other multi-unit dwellings to be built make it much more compatible.Member <br />512 <br />Cunningham noted other lots along Dale Street with similar frontages; and as mentioned <br />513 <br />by Member Bull, this provides a buffer as well as providing another option for move-up <br />514 <br />housing, opining that she found that a currently a missing component in Roseville, with <br />515 <br />these homes providing amore happy medium for that move-up housing versus some <br />516 <br />higher valued homes identified as such. <br />517 <br />Member Murphy echoed the previous statements of his colleagues; and based on his <br />518 <br />drive-by earlier today and observations, opined that the development would not much <br />519 <br />change the character of the existing neighborhood. <br />520 <br />Ayes: 7 <br />521 <br />Nays: 0 <br />522 <br />Motion carried. <br />523 <br />Commission Discussion/Deliberationon Preliminary Plat <br />524 <br />Chair Boguszewski sought additional comment from the Commission, noting the only <br />525 <br />issue remaining appeared to be either a straight or curved street. <br />526 <br />As a driver, Member Cunningham admitted her proclivity to speeding even in residential <br />527 <br />neighborhoods.However, Member Cunningham agreed with research supporting curves <br />528 <br />reducing traffic speeds; and therefore, found she wasinclined to keep the curves, but did <br />529 <br />express her support in this segment of the roadway matching the width of the existing <br />530 <br />Wheaton Avenue.Member Cunningham expressed further concerns she had with <br />531 <br />sufficient parking for residents and/or their visitors; and spoke in support of a 32’ wide <br />532 <br />street and allowing parking on both sides. <br />533 <br />Member Daire agreed with a 32’ wide street; and allowing for a 6’ parking lane on either <br />534 <br />side, leaving two 10’ drive lanes.With the proposed curved alignment, Member Daire <br />535 <br />opined that this should allow more than adequate width if striped appropriately as well as <br />536 <br />keeping speeds down.In response to the comment of one public speaker that Wheaton <br />537 <br />Avenue didn’t go anywhere, Member Daire noted his initial concern that it may serve as a <br />538 <br />drive-around for County Road C and Dale Street to avoid that congestion.However, <br />539 <br />having driven down those streets several times earlier today, Member Daire expressed <br />540 <br />his disbelief that anyone would settle on that option as a convenient option.Member <br />541 <br />Daire stated that he was inclined to approve the proposal and current configuration as <br />542 <br />planned with the exception of the road width. <br />543 <br />Member Gitzen agreed that he preferred the curved street, opining that it added to the <br />544 <br />character of the neighborhood and he thought it would work well in this situation.Member <br />545 <br />Gitzen noted that the developer had also been proactive in addressing existing drainage <br />546 <br />as much as possible, and from that perspective it provided a good design that he liked <br />547 <br />and would support. <br />548 <br />Member Bull stated his agreement in general with his colleagues, including a 32’ wide <br />549 <br />street with parking on both sides and retaining the curving nature of the roadway.Having <br />550 <br />experienced the design of South Owasso Boulevard and that curve, Member Bull <br />551 <br />recognized thatthere wasn’t as much density with parking on one side of that street, but <br />552 <br />opined it would be better to offset that and have parking available on both sides of <br />553 <br />Wheaton Avenue.Member Bull further opined that County Road C and Dale Street <br />554 <br />should easily support this type of additional housing and trips it would generate, <br />555 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.