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 /> <br />Page 6 <br />At the request of Member Gitzen, Mr. Lloyd noted that corner lots are typically different <br />249 <br />and larger in size, butthere were no specific code requirements for wider designation for <br />250 <br />corner lots. <br />251 <br />Member Gitzen asked about trading outlots and subdivisions of the city. <br />252 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that the city had no opposition to the creation of outlots; noting that it <br />253 <br />was not unusual if they represented a large parcel, they may not yet be sold until <br />254 <br />arrangement of the other parcels in the area are completed, and possibly re-platted at a <br />255 <br />later date.Mr. Lloyd clarified that, to his knowledge, there was no stormwater intent for <br />256 <br />this remnant outlot, but noted that it simply didn’t fit with the other lots given the lack of <br />257 <br />staff support for original variance requests and original proposal for one additional lot on <br />258 <br />the north side of Wheaton Avenue and that outlot contributing to those six narrower lots. <br />259 <br />However, Mr. Lloyd noted staff’s support for the revised plan with five conforming lots for <br />260 <br />LDR-1, creating the remnant parcel as an Outlot. <br />261 <br />Member Murphy asked if there was a reason the outlot was not included with the lot to <br />262 <br />the west. <br />263 <br />Mr. Lloyd responded that there may be other reasons for not including it, but also noted if <br />264 <br />the corner parcel is acquired in the future it could be combined with that area. <br />265 <br />Member Stellmach asked what could actually be build if the location remained LDR-1 <br />266 <br />versus the proposed LDR-2; and asked if it would prove a challenge to develop single- <br />267 <br />family homes within that configuration. <br />268 <br />Mr. Lloyd responded that in his assessment of that option, it would require a minimum of <br />269 <br />12,500 square feet at County Road C and Dale Street, and if other lots and tentative lot <br />270 <br />lines had been followed, the remaining space between would not have been wide enough <br />271 <br />to create more than one LDR-1, with the remaining three parcels not conforming.Mr. <br />272 <br />Lloyd reiterated that this was an unconventional site to develop unless those residential <br />273 <br />lots were narrower in front and on the side and shallow from that aspect, even though <br />274 <br />they would be unusual but could be developed and conforming, whether or not they were <br />275 <br />attractive to the market place. <br />276 <br />Applicant Representatives <br />277 <br />Peter Knaeble, Golden Valley Land Co. and Matt Pavek, Land Development Partner; <br />278 <br />both civil engineers specializing in infill land development. <br />279 <br />As a bench handout, Mr. Knaebleprovided an aerial map of the proposed development <br />280 <br />and lotsizes for “Wheaton Woods,” attached hereto and made a part hereof. <br />281 <br />Mr. Knaebleprovided a brief review of their expertise in other challenging development <br />282 <br />projects in the metropolitan area, mostly in the western suburbs. <br />283 <br />Mr. Knaeblereviewed the design and additional cost for the proposed roadway; and in <br />284 <br />response to a question of one of the commissioners, advised that most street <br />285 <br />maintenance costs are attributable to width and length, estimating that the additional <br />286 <br />length of this roadway would result in approximately a 5% increase in those costs.Given <br />287 <br />the proposed narrower width of this street, Mr. Knaebleestimated that it would be a <br />288 <br />wash; and given that there would be no design for additional tonnage, and in accordance <br />289 <br />with city standards, he suspected additional savings may actually be realized. <br />290 <br />At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Knaebleadvised that operationally he didn’t <br />291 <br />see any operational concerns for snow maintenance and removal between a straight and <br />292 <br />curving roadway, as long as the curves were not too sharp, and based on their <br />293 <br />experience in other subdivisions. <br />294 <br />While used to a 10’ versus the 12’ easement as a condition of this first Roseville project, <br />295 <br />Mr. Knaebleadvised that they had already changed their plans for 12’ easements <br />296 <br />accordingly; but was amenable to that remaining as a condition of approval and serving <br />297 <br />as a reminder. <br />298 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.