pm_030806 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

changed based on their input, including limiting the height to one story and increasing the setback from the east property line to 30 feet. He explained the new retaining walls proposed along the driveway. An excavation limits diagram was explained. Utility plans for sewer and water were illustrated, along with storm water run-off. Grass Lake Watershed must approve the plans. A tree plan was illustrated; 20 trees would be removed. He said the project was sensitive and complimentary to the site. The units would be 1400 - 1850 s.t. The units will be 26 feet, with a roof slope of 8/12. From the back half of the units, water would run to the west. Bob Moser explained drainage from neighbors across from the Mogg property with no disruption of the neighbors' drainage. Member Peper asked if the private street must accommodate a fire truck in the cul-de-sac. Thomas Paschke explained the street is short and the plan has been reviewed by the fire marshal. Member Bakeman asked if the staff recommendation were acceptable (yes). Thomas Paschke explained the flexibility needed for porches and patios, allowing reduction of the needs for changes to the PUD. Peter Pangborn, 2615 Cohansey, asked for clarification of traffic generation; how many single family lots would be allowed (4 to 6 lots, with up to 25% impervious per lot). He asked for clarification of run off management and asked why such construction would occur in the treed areas. Does the pond require removal of trees? (Watershed will make that determination). Chris Kruger, 2615 Cohansey, spoke in opposition to the change in the plan. She referred to Section 9 of the Comprehensive Plan - park section regarding acquiring land for Central Park. There is little green space left in Roseville. This is not a dilemma in Roseville alone (Burnsville, St. Paul). Add this parcel to the park system. A copy of comments was distributed. Janice Porter, 2621 Cohansey, spoke in opposition to the change because of the protection and enhancement of the Harriet Alexander Nature Center. Run-off will damage the wetland eco system. Also, concern was expressed regarding "clear-cut" of vegetation along the borders. Erosion and runoff, construction debris will damage the wetland. A petition was submitted in opposition to the proposal. The housing development is unwanted. The City should take responsibility for this land. David Livingston, 2621 Cohansey, spoke to the Vista 2000 program, and environmental vision (page 20) preventing damage to wetlands, requires a comprehensive environmental inventory. He explained he was appealing to civic pride to retain the undeveloped parcel and protect the adjoining park. Peter Pangborn, 2615 Cohansey, illustrated an aerial of the site. The project is not consistent with adjacent neighborhood because of the tree removal and mass grading. Trees will be destroyed for ponding. New town homes will be larger than illustrated on the proposed drawings. The staff report has no maximum house size; the final town homes could be much larger than - as large as the development "box". The town homes at 40x40 (1600 s.t.) exceeds the size in the single family neighborhood (twice as large). Roof pitch in the neighborhood is 4 to 12. A twenty-six foot height would not be consistent with his two-story house adjoining the site. The town home has a full lower level (a two-story building as seen from the south and west and 16 feet of roof). The Moser drawings are misleading in that are roof line outlines while the proposed are wall outlines. In section 4.1, staff report states that the site could be developed but control is still available. Why have a common area? Where is the screening between Cohansey houses and new development? The view should be blocked, no bushes or fences proposed. This should be part of the recommendation. Peter Pangborn stated that there was confusion in the setbacks. The project is not consistent and should be denied or use the alternatives suggested by the neighbors. He suggested an extension to September for Council decisions. Mr. Moser responded to setbacks. There will be a 30 foot setback along the east property lines. The "green box" concept allows for design flexibility, but still has 70 feet between units. This is a consistent use, but difficult to compare two-story to one-story with lower walk-out. There probably will be empty nesters housing. He explained the neighborhood meetings. He explained the requirements for run off from state agencies. There will be no abuse of adjacent wetland. It may be dedicated as park land. A tree preservation plan will be prepared. Chair Mulder closed the hearing. Member Ipsen asked how high the retaining wall would be (4'to 14' to 10' to zero). The wall will not be exposed to neighbors to the east. Member Bakeman asked if conditions can be added to motion, which then will become part of the final PUD.