pm_990714 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

spaces with screening and landscaping. Member Olson asked for details of the fences on the existing property line (to be removed) as well as vegetation. (Most to be removed) Chair Klausing asked for further details on parking for guests and code requirements for guest parking. He also asked for location of the fencing. Member Wilke asked for details of the St. Anthony approvals - nothing would be approved in Roseville until St. Anthony approves. Member Egli asked for examples of similar situations of PUDs in two cities. (None available) Chair Klausing asked for details of the reasoning for a PUD. Could the developer build without a variance? What is being done to be different from normal code requirements? (Generally five-foot setbacks for driveways are required.) Chair Klausing asked for details of the PUD process. Why does the Planning Commission review this only once? Member Olson asked if the rear yard is also owned by Mendota Homes. John Mathern representing Mendota Homes, explained the development project. He noted that the parking lot currently drains to the east, into a common area wetland. He noted the project is on the agenda in St. Anthony for the next week. All fences and asphalt on the site will be removed and there will be more green space when done than currently exists. Mr. Mathern described the townhome design and landscaping. He is reviewing alternatives for guest overflow parking of four spaces. The prospective owner is over fifty years and wants to stay in the area and wants few steps. The chain-link fence will be removed on both sides and the lot-lines will be replanted. Member Olson asked for details of the asphalt that is two feet from the property line; the building is 16' to 18' from the east (rear) property line. Member Egli asked if there was a sidewalk on Old County Road 8? Will there be linkage or pathway connecting the two properties and the pond? She explained her concern for the view of the project from the condominiums. Can there be better screening? (There is five feet of planting space.) Mr. Mathern said that a choice of trees, evergreens and shrubs is possible Chair Klausing asked if tuck-under garages were considered? Can there be a half-story tuck-under? (No, tuck-unders require more steps) Mathern said steps require a different buyer. Chair Klausing asked what the market price will be? Mathern explained the market price will be $159,000 to $180,000. Member Wilke asked if the fire staff has reviewed. (Yes, suggests a hydrant at the east end of the site) Comments from the public. Ray Maliner, representing the Executive Condominium Association, noted the association does not object to development, but to setback from Executive Manor "B" building, especially the driveway. Headlights and noise may be a concern. He read a letter objecting to the ten-unit development because it would face the condo, cars, buildings and construction dirt will be too close. Mr. Maliner said condo members did not fully receive mailings. Nine of thirty-six members did not receive mailings. Dorothy Ohnsorg, Maple Lane, noted that the original proposal was a thirty-unit building. The current proposal is much better design. Please inform her of additional hearings. There being no further comment, Chair Klausing closed the hearing. Member Mulder asked for setback dimensions of the condo Building "B" (18 feet from property line) Chair Klausing noted he does like the senior housing concept and the lower building and density. He expressed concern about the setback to the south. He prefers the project grant a variance on the north side, moving the building farther away