pm_881102 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION page# 6 Wednesday, November 2, 1988 Berry asked about the slope of the proposed road. Tramm stated that it would have a slope that would meet standards. Keel stated that the grade would be about 3%. Kehr stated that a second pump as a backup in the lift station should be considered. Tramm stated that it still was their intent to provide sufficient backup systems in the lift station. Keel suggested that this could be a condition on the approval. John Adams of 880 Sandhurst asked what the rear yard setback would be. Dahlgren stated that it would normally be 30 feet. Adams pointed out that the proposed houses show only a 15 foot rear yard setback and if a three season porch is added as shown in the elevation drawings of the houses that the setback would end up being 5 feet or less. Dahlgren stated that the PUD plan would establish the 15 foot setback which could not be reduced unless the plan were amended. Johnson asked if the 15 foot setback was shown on the plan then they couldn't add the porch on to reduce the setback. Dahlgren responded that this was correct. Adams asked what assurance the neighborhood had that the association would operate if houses were not sold or occupied. Tramm stated that the developer is the caretaker until all the uni ts are sold and that they will ensure that the grounds are properly maintained. Tony Kieger, 888 Sandhurst, stated that they have held a neighborhood meeting and had a number of concerns including the possibility of other houses on small lots being added, that there would be an insufficient play area, that parking would be a problem, that there would be maintenance problems in the future. Kieger stated that the neighborhood wanted fewer lots. Kieger pointed out that the Casey property was different because it had a wooded area to buffer homes whereas these proposed homes would be right adjacent to existing homes in the area. Tramm pointed out that he had approached adjacent owners and they were not in agreement so no additional lots would be added in the future. Adams questioned the proposed hammerhead design. Nisja explained that the City's standards had recently been modified and that a 60 foot hammerhead would no longer be acceptable. Nisja pointed out that 60 foot was previously acceptable and this proposed change is occurring after this project was in the works and that the change would not be retroactive.