Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />Page#11 <br /> <br />Wednesday, October 5, 1988 <br /> <br />Tramm stated that the homes they are proposing would be higher <br />priced than others in the neighborhood and that the project would <br />be an asset to the neighborhood and the community. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that it was unfortunate that again the Commission <br />is considering a project with opposition. <br /> <br />Goedeke asked if the lots have the required square footage. <br />Dahlgren responded that legally the overall development conforms <br />to City standards because it is in the planned unit development, <br />the entire area within the PUD is divided by the total number of <br />lots to get the average lot size. Dahlgren pointed out that <br />while each individual lot is not 11,000 sq. ft., the overall <br />average is 11,000 sq. ft. Dahlgren pointed out that the <br />developer has the right to propose a PUD and the City has the <br />right to approve or disapprove it. Dahlgren stated that PUD IS <br />are usually used for mUlti-family development and not single <br />family development but that the City has approved a single family <br />PUD on the Casey property. <br /> <br />Berry stated that it was appropriate to use the area of the road <br />in the calculation just as you would for driveway to a mul ti- <br />family development. <br /> <br />DeBenedet stated that the average lot size in the total PUD was <br />10,400 ft. and that the new lot average size was 9100 sq. ft. <br />DeBenedet also pointed out that there are small lots in the area <br />which the City has used to justify lot divisions. <br /> <br />Berry testified that people are looking for smaller lots such as <br />these because they would welcome less maintenance. <br /> <br />stokes spoke in favor of the proposal because the streets will <br />handle the increased traffic, fire concerns have been addressed <br />and that there would be no cost to the City. <br /> <br />Berry said that her experience was that there was not a traffic <br />problem in the area and that there was sufficient capacity for 4 <br />more homes. <br /> <br />Maschka stated that he opposed the proposal and indicated that <br />it was too compact a development with too small lots which could <br />set a precedent which could lead to bad development within the <br />City. <br /> <br />Goedeke stated that the City could require a ten foot setback as <br />a condition of approval. <br />