Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />page# 9 <br /> <br />Wednesday, November 2, 1988 <br /> <br />consistent with the neighborhood. Ingersoll stated that they <br />should consider what the adjacent neighbors are saying and that <br />two houses on the site would be adequate. <br /> <br />Kieger pointed out that the houses to the north on Sandhurst are <br />much larger, and that the proposed 15 foot rear yard setback <br />would devalue his lot. Kieger stated that the neighborhood <br />thought the land parcel would not be developed and that they <br />would have considered purchasing the property if they had been <br />approached. <br /> <br />Adams stated his concern with the proposed 15 foot rear setback <br />and pointed out that other people had to abide by setbacks and <br />that it was disturbing that a variance is being considered in <br />this case. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Maschka stated he would vote against the proposal because of soil <br />problems, too many variances to City standards, fire service <br />problems, because the development was too intense, and that it <br />would set a bad precedent. <br /> <br />Goedeke stated he was against the proposal because it varies too <br />much from the ordinance, because of bad soils and the loss of the <br />existing trees and other vegetation. <br /> <br />stokes stated that he would be in favor of the project. Stokes <br />pointed that the pump station appears to be adequate, that <br />parking and access would not be a problem, that the proposed <br />development would be better than mUlti-family on the site. <br />stokes testified that it was generally a good plan, that <br />marketing is not something the City should be concerned with, <br />that the development meets City requirements except the two acre <br />requirements and that the City has to consider the right of <br />homeowners to sell and develop their property. <br /> <br />Maschka testified that the fifteen foot rear yard was a concern <br />and that this development would set a precedent which would <br />destroy the quality of life in the area. Maschka stated that <br />private streets would be a problem to the fire department. <br />Stokes replied that the fire department can handle the <br />development. <br /> <br />Moeller commented that some of the lots would not meet the normal <br />front yard setback or the normal rear yard setback. Moeller <br />stated that there are too many buildings on too small land and <br />that three lots would be better. Moeller added that the proposal <br />would not conform to the surrounding neighborhood. <br />