Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />page# 8 <br /> <br />Wednesday, November 2, 1988 <br /> <br />development is done well that it doesn't have a negative effect <br />on adjacent property values. <br /> <br />Kieger asked who would pay $125,000 to $140,000 based on the size <br />of the properties. Tramm responded that the numbers were based <br />on their experience in development. <br /> <br />Maschka asked if soil tests have been completed. Tramm responded <br />that no formal testing had been done, just informal tests. <br /> <br />DeBenedet inquired what informal tests were. Tramm responded <br />that they had dug with a shovel to look at what kind of soil was <br />there. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked what they found on the corner lot. <br />responded that they had found good soil five feet down. <br /> <br />Tramm <br /> <br />Richardson asked if failure of <br />drainage onto adj acent si tes. <br />have to review the final plans. <br />of approval of the development <br />plans. <br /> <br />the lift station would result in <br />Keel replied that staff would <br />Johnson stated that a condition <br />would be staff review of final <br /> <br />Tony Saber, 2227 Nancy Place, asked where the $25,000 estimated <br />lot value was obtained. Saber testified that two lots in the <br />area had sold from $40,000 to $45,000. Tramm responded that the <br />value is an opinion and was provided by an MAI appraiser. Tramm <br />pointed out that lots on Nancy Place were worth more than these <br />particular lots. <br /> <br />Saber asked how you could put a $150,000 house on a $25,000 lot. <br />Tramm replied that the lot cost range was $25,000 $35,000 <br />which is within the recognized standard of the lot costing 1/4 of <br />the total price. <br /> <br />Herb Bennett, 2189 Victoria, stated that this project would be a <br />deterioration of Roseville. <br /> <br />Bill Kritta, 908 Sandhurst, stated a concern about the parking, <br />pointing out that County Road B would be the only alternative <br />place for overflow parking which would be hazardous situation. <br />Kritta also testified that according to City ordinance, a PUD <br />issued should be in harmony with its surroundings and that this <br />proposal was not in harmony wi th surrounding areas. Qui tter <br />stated that the proposal was a step backward, was an ill <br />conceived plan which would reduce the value of adjacent houses. <br /> <br />Truman Ingersoll, 2220 Milton, stated that the proposal would <br />jeopardize the community, the density was not appropriate or <br />