pm_881102 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Page#10 Wednesday, November 2, 1988 Berry testified that she supports a wide variety of types of housing and the right of property owners to use their property. Berry pointed out that there was opposition to constructing the houses to the north and that their development did not hurt the neighborhood. Berry stated that most houses are developed on 1/4 acre and that these fit. Berry questioned whether existing landscaping intrudes into the northeast corner of the site. Tramm stated that he does not believe that it does intrude onto this property. Berry stated she was inclined to support the development and that values have not historically declined in Roseville. DeBenedet pointed out that value increases could be due to inflation but that development probably doesn't effect value if it is good quality development. Johnson asked if soil tests would be required. responded that they would be. Dahlgren Johnson stated that if soil was bad that the development may not ever go ahead. Dahlgren replied that the soil correction would probably be done to allow the development to go ahead. Tramm stated that he was not concerned about the soil and that they would do correction if it was necessary. Berry moved and Stokes seconded to recommend approval of the variance to the two acre minimum PUD size. Roll Call: Ayes: Stokes, Berry Nays: Goedeke, Maschka, Moeller, DeBenedet, Johnson DeBenedet moved, Maschka seconded to recommend denial of the preliminary plat and PUD on the grounds that the rear yard setback and the density of housing provided is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Stokes questioned what the side and rear yard setback requirements in a PUD were. Dahlgren responded that PUD allows flexibility that there are no set rules but that the city uses the general standards as guidelines for review. Stokes asked if only three lots were provided, would a PUD be necessary. Dahlgren replied that it might be handled as a plat only if not more than two properties would be sharing the driveway.