CCP 08222022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Attachment D Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 25, 2022 Page 3 88 City Council is not going to deny this then the City Council should at least table 89 this until more information is received about planning. 90 91 Ms. Laurie Starr, 2999 Troseth Road 92 Ms. Starr explained everyone has done an excellent job of detailing how dense the 93 housing in this neighborhood already is and to increase the density from two fami- 94 lies up to seven families seems excessive for two lots. She did not believe that the 95 water run off will be less. This is important to the residents. She explained they 96 were told there was not enough engagement from the neighborhood but her neigh- 97 borhood has been engaged in trying to reduce the density in this neighborhood since 98 the Edison project went in and that is what is important to them. This project is 99 going to remove even more trees. 100 101 Mayor Roe closed the Public Comment. 102 103 Mayor Roe believed the height limitation in a single-family district is thirty feet, 104 which has not changed from what it has been for years. He explained the runoff 105 requirement from the Watershed District as well as the City is that any new devel- 106 oped property has to control runoff better than the existing conditions. He noted 107 this is a requirement that must be met by any development in the City. 108 109 Councilmember Strahan explained it was important to note that LDR in this area is 110 the same as LDR elsewhere in the City. LDR limits eight houses per acre in this 111 area as well as in any other area in Roseville. 112 113 Mayor Roe asked if Old Highway 8 is a City or County Road. 114 115 City Engineer Freihammer explained that road is a City street. It is a City Munici- 116 pal State Aid street and is one of the roads the City can spend its Municipal State 117 Aid dollars on. RosevilleÓs assessment policy is that the City only assesses when 118 there is a mill and overlay construction project. 119 120 Councilmember Willmus thought the community was confused about what LDR is 121 today versus what LDR-1 was prior to the CityÓs latest update of the Comprehen- 122 sive Plan. The City currently has low density residential, prior the City has low 123 density residential but a subset of that was LDR-1, LDR-2. There are significant 124 difference in design standards between LDR-1 and LDR-2. This area was what 125 was formally LDR-1 with design standards that required significantly larger lots 126 and when the City stripped that back it went to anything that was zoned LR-1 and 127 the update in essence, became LDR-2. Similar to LDR-2 in design standards except 128 lot sizes. He personally spoke to that when these conversations were made. This 129 type or any project that is shoehorned into this type of a neighborhood was his 130 concern that he had at the time and a concern he still has. Zoning is very important 131 and he thought that some of the speakers that had commented and noted between 132 densities is something that frankly, this Council has in the past held fairly firm to. Page 4 of 50