Laserfiche WebLink
Staff recommended needed improvements to the site plan include: <br />•Setbacks requirements <br />•Soils correction <br />•Easements setbacks <br />•View/design from street <br />•Neighborhood (Burke) design compatibility with single family. <br />Chairman Wietecki asked if the higher density on Burke Avenue is <br />recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. (Yes.) He asked if soils are poor <br />only on Zeece site (primarily). He noted that the project looks like what has <br />been seen before; it needs creativity. Why do garages all have to be in front? <br />Residents should see more variety. <br />Larry Olm explained the site design difficulties. <br />Member Harms said that tract homes in Roseville have garages and drives in <br />front, similar to new townhomes. <br />Larry Olm noted that each unit will have 32' lots and 40' roads. <br />Member Cunningham asked for clarification on Zeece site; why is there open <br />space (utility easements); and, will Zeece continue to live on the site? (Yes.) <br />Member Wilke asked if public streets could be turned back to developer. This <br />would make setback requirements easier to deal with. <br />Larry Olm stated basements are not needed for senior storage. <br />Chairman Wietecki noted the need for variety (see Pratt and Harstad Projects). <br />Member Harms stated variety can be achieved by site planning/site locations. <br />Member Cunningham asked if the developer has considered purchasing all of <br />Zeece site. (Zeece has reviewed this in the past.) <br />Chairman Wietecki asked whether the public street be vacated and whether this <br />is needed in a review with a new site plan. <br />There were no further comments and no action. <br />8.INFORMATION, REPORTS, AND OTHER BUSINESS: <br />6 <br />