My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_750903
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
197x
>
1975
>
pm_750903
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:03 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:13:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/3/1975
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
<br />is for the rezoning of se\ vacant lots located on Russell Jurt. He stated that one <br />of the lots on Russell Court has an existing single family home located on it. Mr. Daubney <br />comnented that the utilities are in Russell Court and available to the hanes. Each of the <br />double homes would have a construction cost of approximately $75.000 - $80.000. The units <br />would all be owned by Mr. Johnson and would be rented. The rental rates would be $325 <br />$350 for each dwelling tmit. Mr. Daubney indicated that Mr. Victor Michels would be the <br />contractor for the proposed double hanes. He stated that the hanes proposed would be <br />comparable to the single family homes in the area. Mr. Daubney felt that it would be <br />uneconomic to develop for single family homes. He stated that Mr. Johnson had purchased <br />these lots to provide a barrier between his 11'Otel and the single family homes to the west. <br />Mr. Daubney said that Mr. Johnson does not desire to sell the property because of the <br />possibility of complaints from the new property owners regarding lights, noise, etc. from <br />the motel. If he continued to own the property and rent it he would have more control. <br />Mr. Johnson desires to retain the ownership and retain the barrier. Mr. Daubney stated that <br />the lots would be landscaped as homes are constructed on them. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Mr. V. Johnson asked if any discussions had been held with the Rice Creek Water Shed <br />District regarding the development. <br /> <br />Mr. Daubney responded that to his knowledge there had been no contact with the Rice Creek <br />Water Sheci District. <br /> <br />Mr. Walter Bauer, 1655 Stanbridge, presented the Cormnission with a petition signed by over <br />100 residents from the area opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Bauer inquired who would maintain <br />the property. <br /> <br />Mr. Daubney indicated that Mr. Lewis Johnson would be personally responsible for the main- <br />tenance, upkeep and landscaping of all the properties. <br /> <br />Mr. Bauer asked what would be the effect of the additional runoff into County Ditch No. 4 <br />and Mr. Daubney responded that there would be very little additional runoff because of the <br />development. <br /> <br />Mr. Vie Michels indicated that the units would each contain two bedrooms and approximately <br />1,000 square feet. <br /> <br />Mr. Daubney conunented that the rental rate would include the lawn care maintenance. <br /> <br />Mr. James McKee, expressed concern over what assurance the residents would have that it <br />would be developed as proposed if Mr. Johnson should for some reason not continue to own <br />the property. He stated that he was opposed to the development. <br /> <br />Mr. Walter Bauer indicated that the residents feel that developnent would enable one man <br />to make a profit at the expense of the surrounding property owners. <br /> <br />Mr. Hubie, 1673 Millwood. suggested that the Planning Ccmnission look at the property as <br />it stands today and see how well Mr. Johnson maintains it. He cODlllented that it was the <br />concern of the residents that Mr. Johnson would maintain the property after it is developed <br />in the same way. <br /> <br />Marie Peters. who lives in the single family home located on Russell Court. stated that <br />they are not bothered by the lOOtel lights or noise. but did feel that there could be more <br />trees planted for screening purposes. Sle felt the lots could be developed for single <br />family homes and expressed her opposition to the rezoning. <br /> <br />Mr. Daubney indicated that the units would be unfurnished. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.