Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />page# 7 <br /> <br />Wednesday, January 4, 1989 <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Dahlgren summarized the proposed lot division and the lot sizes <br />in the surrounding area. <br /> <br />Nelson stated that he liked the neighborhood and city and wants <br />to stay but that his existing house is getting over crowded. <br /> <br />Maschka asked what the footprint of the new house would be. <br /> <br />Nelson responded that he hadn't developed it yet but he wants it <br />to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. <br /> <br />Richard Peterson, 1045 W. County Road B, inquired what the effect <br />of the proposal would have on the natural drainage flow in the <br />area. Keel replied that this issue would be dealt with in the <br />permi t review process and that Mr. Nelson wouldn't be able to <br />impede the natural flow across the lot. <br /> <br />Peterson asked if there would a storm sewer assessment. <br />replied that the developer would be responsible for any <br />sewer that was required because of his project. <br /> <br />Keel <br />storm <br /> <br />Lawrence Peterson, 1043 W. County B, stated that he opposed the <br />proposed lot split and pointed out that the existing lots are a <br />nice size and comparable to other lots in the area. Peterson <br />added that allowing minimum sizes is the wrong approach in that <br />area and pointed out that the corner lot would be below minimum <br />area standards. Peterson also concurred with the concern about <br />drainage. Peterson stated that Mr. Lloyd Benson at 2176 Oxford <br />had asked him to convey his objections to the lot split and that <br />the City has ordinances in place which it should abide by. <br /> <br />Gary Erickson, 2185 Oxford, stated that the city should not go by <br />past actions but to review this case on its own merits. Erickson <br />stated that the proposed division would destroy the appeal of the <br />neighborhood and that the City should not try to shoe horn <br />another lot because it could affect the value. Erickson stated <br />that he was opposed to the division. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Berry stated a concern about drainage from the Super America lot <br />going across this property. Peterson replied that Super America <br />takes care of its own drainage. <br /> <br />Berry asked about the open space that appeared to be behind all <br />of these lots and wondered what the development potential might <br />be. <br />