pm_880106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Page # 2 Wednesday, January 6, 1988 Dahlgren showed location, size, topography of the proposed lots, and the relationship to the wetlands and park. He pointed out that access to the site would be provided from the existing hammerhead cul-de-sac on Woodlynn. Dahlgren indicated that this was a simple division into two lots and that 29 units could be developed on the site under the city's PUD provisions. Dahlgren indicated conditions of approval might include that a ponding easement be provided to the city, that additional right- of-way be dedicated to provide a circular cul-de-sac at the end of Woodlynn Avenue, and that the division, if approved, apply to two single-family dwellings only. Dahlgren indicated that the city shore land ordinance would restrict the location of the dwellings on the new parcels and that variances may be necessary. Janisch explained the location of the normal high water line adjacent to the parcels and indicated that buildable lot depths would be 150-250 feet. Mr. Seltz explained the possible house locations on the two parcels. He questioned whether the ditch or tree line should be used to determine the normal high water line. Seltz indicated that the location of the house on Parcel A would be as far north as possible to minimize the driveway length and the location of the dwelling on Parcel B would be south of the power lines. Seltz indicated that a 20 foot shore land variance might be necessary. Goedeke asked about the driveway location. Seltz indicated there would be a 15 foot driveway which would be setback 5 feet from the property line and the house on Parcel B. Goedeke asked if the fire vehicle turnaround discussed at the previous meeting was still necessary. Janisch indicated that the Fire Marshall no longer would need the turnaround because the hydrant location was adequate. Moeller inquired if the tree line or ditch should be used to determine normal high water line. Janisch indicated that the tree line should be used. Moeller pointed out that a shoreline setback variance would probably not be needed on the Parcel B. Janisch replied that that was correct and that a 5 to 10 foot variance might be needed on Parcel A.