My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_041103
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2004
>
pm_041103
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:36:17 PM
Creation date
1/6/2005 3:25:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/3/2004
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Lot 3 <br />Lot 4 <br /> <br />85 feet <br />85 feet <br /> <br />220 feet <br />220 feet <br /> <br />18,700 sq. ft. <br />18,700 sq. ft. <br /> <br />30 feet <br />30 feet <br /> <br />Mr. Paschke advised that City Staff had reviewed the submitted plans (utility, grading, and drainage) and supports <br />the size and location of all utilities proposed, and the preliminary grading/drainage plan and recommended <br />approval subject to conditions indicated in the project report dated November 3, 2004. <br /> <br />Member Traynor asked what is the standard for lot subdivision. Thomas Paschke explained the staff review uses <br />the City Code, Subdivision and Zoning requirements. All dimension criteria meet or exceed the City requirements in <br />this proposal. No variances are requested. <br /> <br />Member Bakeman asked for clarification of the easements and how they impact the setbacks. Thomas Paschke <br />explained the Xcel overhead and Amoco underground-pipeline easements. No building setback is required from <br />the easement. No driveway, patio or man-made structure can be placed on the pipeline easement. <br /> <br />Member Pust asked who would bear the cost of utilities and road services (Developer's costs). <br /> <br />Chair Mulder explained that there is no requirement that a developer be present in order to take action. (The <br />applicant\developer was not present.) <br /> <br />Linda Neilson, 1349 Brooks Avenue W, asked what the relation is between Jeff Cruz and Jeff Brown and Hunter <br />Development. Thomas Paschke explained the application and Mr. Brown's interest. Regarding curb cuts, the <br />setback must be met City Code set back requirements and be no more than 26 feet in width on the City right-of- <br />way. Ms. Nelson asked what role Ramsey County plays in this process (curb cut permits). <br /> <br />Ms. Neilson commented that she agreed with the staff condition and is happy to see single family homes on the <br />site. <br /> <br />There being no further public comment, Chair Mulder closed the hearing. <br /> <br />Chair Mulder asked Thomas Paschke to explain the history of previous proposals on this site. Member Traynor <br />asked for further details or correspondence from the developer that the staff might have. <br /> <br />Member Pust asked for clarification on ownership and the application. Thomas Paschke stated that staff will <br />request the developer to be present. <br /> <br />Chair Mulder explained there is nothing in the application that should hold it up for the developer to appear. The <br />staff must inform the developer to appear at the Commission and Council meetings. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Boerigter, to recommend approval of the <br />Preliminary Plat, Oakcrest Estates, allowing the creation of four single family residential lots from the 1.44 <br />acre parcel at 2550 Hamline Avenue, based on the comments of Section 4 and conditions of Section 5 of <br />the project report dated November 3, 2004 as indicated below: <br /> <br />1. The access for Lot 1, Block 1 is to a County Road, it is necessary to construct a turn around for this <br />driveway. The County Traffic Engineer (Dan Soler) must review this plat and driveway access. <br /> <br />2. Due to the location of the actual overhead electrical wires, the City is requiring this plat be reviewed by <br />Xcel Energy. It appears that the wires will be over a portion of the buildable area of Lot 1, Block 1. <br />Additional measures might need to be taken to ensure the safety of this home. <br /> <br />3. The exact location of the Amoco Oil easement must be identified on the plat prior to the final approval by <br />the City Council (this issue came up during a previous process). <br /> <br />4. Curb cuts must be in conformance with the City of Roseville Residential driveway standards. <br /> <br />5. Any work within the Ramsey County right-of- way will require a permit. <br /> <br />6. There is sanitary and water available in Oakcrest Avenue. However, it will be necessary to excavate <br />within City right-of-way to connect the new homes to these utilities. Street restoration will be necessary <br />consistent with the City's right-of-way permit policy. Oakcrest Avenue was reconstructed in 1981. <br /> <br />7. The proposal must include a tree preservation plan specific to those trees located around the periphery <br />and include a landscape plan. <br /> <br />8. This parcel is a non-platted lot. When platted into Oakcrest Estates will have a park dedication <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.