CCP 07102023 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Attachment 5 99 100 Mr. OÓMeara explained they have taken snow removal into account when the land 101 was developed. He noted by Code there could be fourteen to fifteen units on this land 102 but because of the possibility of snow storage the units were cut back to ten. Snow 103 should be able to be handled onsite and if not, the development will need to pay to 104 remove it. 105 106 Chair Pribyl wondered if the townhomes will be sold or be rental units. 107 108 Mr. OÓMeara explained the development was created in such a way that either having 109 the townhomes as rentals or sold could be done. He stated the intent is to be flexible. 110 111 Public Comment 112 113 Mr. Arthur McWilliams, 2571 Fry Street, explained he lives by the kiddie pool and 114 suspected this development will be good for the neighborhood overall. There will be 115 nice new buildings in the neighborhood and in the long run might have a ripple effect 116 and will be an improvement from what was previously there. Parking came up, 117 which is his sole concern. He noted the parks gets a lot of use as well. 118 119 No one else wished to address the Commission. Chair Pribyl closed the public 120 hearing. 121 122 Commission Deliberation 123 124 Member Aspnes indicated she did not object to the twinhomes by themselves. Her 125 concern is the City lost an opportunity to add to the park land, to this park which is 126 really lovely. She can see some trees that have been planted in the park. She thought 127 the park could use more parking so there is not so much traffic and parking on Fry 128 Street. 129 130 Member Kruzel asked if staff knew why the Parks and Recreation Commission 131 decided not to further investigate this or is that something that could be public 132 knowledge. 133 134 Mr. Paschke thought when this property first went up for sale many years ago the 135 Parks Department had a chance to buy it and chose not to and he believed the City 136 was a part of that discussion. 137 138 Member McGehee indicated she personally would make findings that this plan has 139 potentially very negative impact on the park because of the location, the oversite of 140 the kiddie pool and the fact that people will be viewing this activity from their homes 141 as well as the entire parking into the complex, the entire development is a problem, 142 and this adds to it. She thought everything from snow removal to parking for those 143 specific homes are inadequate and the homes having to have sprinkling system 144 because there is not the kind of access for emergency vehicles that the City would 145 normally require and the fact that this is a landlocked area with a very busy, highly 146 used park with some amenities that are particular to this park and particular to 147 Roseville in general where the City does not have them anywhere else and there are Page 9 of 10