pm_050202 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of Roseville - Planning Commission Agenda for February 2, 2005 on the site to provide residents in the neighborhood with an alternative to older single family homes. Page 5 of7 Thomas Paschke explained that one neighbor's telephone conversation was concern with the style and design of townhomes along Elmer, with four units only. Delores Mordorski, 2046 Marion Street, asked what the value of the units would be. Guptil said the condos will start in the $150,000s, while the townhomes will start in the $250,000s.The townhomes will be 1800 sq. ft. on one level for empty nesters. The lower level could have a second or third bedroom. The condos will have two bedrooms from 1100 to 1300 sq. ft.. She asked if this was a neighborhood place similar to the single family. The apartments are not similar to this. Guptil explained the need to update the apartments. The condo residents will look for a secure site. She asked for details regarding the landscaping. Guptil explained that mature plantings at least 2 Y2" in diameter will be planted. The pond will require extra ordinary landscaping. She asked if there was a crossing between Elmer and McCarrons (No). Will the traffic enter Rice Street; will it cause traffic concerns? She asked if the parking could be more complete. Density is too high. Kirsten Enjelbrecher, Elmer and Marion Streets, said her lot is one-third acre. She is concerned about style and density of the townhomes. The stucco homes across the street should be repeated in the townhomes. There is no space for landscaping. She was concerned about drainage and ponding along Elmer Street. Member Traynor asked for details of the style of units and how it could replicate some neighborhood design details. Thomas Paschke explained that minor design upgrades could be done but will be difficult to replicate the 1950s single family homes. The proposed exterior is lap siding of concrete planking. Chair Mulder said the drawing does not display the setback variation that could help. Greg Peterson, 222 No. McCarrons Blvd., expressed concern with parking spaces for visitors especially on weekends when the armory and Church are in use. Chair Mulder said parking requirements on-site must be adhered to. Mr. Peterson asked where the park dedications might be located. Tom Tschida, 2057 Woodbridge, asked about city sewer capacity and water pressure and if it will remain adequate for the entire neighborhood. At B-2 and Western there is poor water pressure. Deb Bloom explained the verification for water pressure for sprinklered units and sewer capacity. Resident at William and Elmer expressed concern regarding parking and traffic (fast) along Elmer. Will guests be parking on the street. Currently there is a car at the corner of Elmer at Rice. Brian Larson, 182 West Skillman, asked for a definition of a Planned Unit Development. Thomas Paschke explained that density is a land use description while a PUD is a zoning district which allows greater flexibility on redevelopment sites. Brian asked if the drainage (through an easement to the west) would reduce the land area or be placed in a pipe underground. Guptil explained that the site will only be used for overflow water. Brian asked about RV parking (None will be allowed). Kirsten Anglebrit said the Armory parking has been expanded near the pond. She expressed concern with flooding along Elmer from additional hard surface; also expressed concern about density and value of homes in the neighborhood. Deb Bloom explained that water must be retained on the site to reduce flooding. Currently the wetland has no outlet, but is protected by the Watershed. Bob Fossum, Capitol Region Watershed District, expressed concern for water quality and quantity (flow control and volume) protection and preservation. He explained the water quality concerns for Lake McCarrons and asked that it be a condition of approval of the concept. He referred to his letter to the Commission of January 31, 2005. The pond in the southeast corner only treats 20% of the site. Chair Mulder referred to item 8.3 in the staff report, wherein the city reviews and approves the project. Member Bakeman said typical conditions are "subject to review by the Watershed". Duane Haukebo, 1731 Galtier St., Galilee Lutheran Church, explained about the church working with Mr. Guptil. The church hired a consultant to review additions for the Church and still have shared parking with Mr. Guptil, up to ten parking spaces within a shared access and parking easement. Mr. Guptil responded that parking is critical and it will require firm senior housing requirements to reduce overall need. Tom Tschida explained that shared parking is a hassle - will church successors have to comply? Is there a deep pond? Thomas Paschke explained current city policy regarding parking and storm water. Mr. Tschida said there are too many unknowns to approve. http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/councillplanning/minutes/2005/pm050202.htm 3/31/2005