pm_060906 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of Roseville - Planning Commission Minutes for September 6, 2006http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/2006/pm0906.htm the neighborhood, the character of which was one unique to Roseville. Chair Traynor opined that he was not sure that he had changed his position, even though the lot sizes and setbacks were up to code. Chair Traynor further opined that he would prefer that the entire Acorn Road would be designed in a more thoughtful way to preserve the character and consistency of the neighborhood. Chair Traynor concluded by opining that he would not likely support this request. Commissioner Boerigter opined his support of the project, as it met the code requirements; lack of tree preservation ordinance at this time; lack of legal precedent for creation of a private roadway; and further opined that it was normal for neighborhood characteristics to change, recognizing that the entire community was based on the inner-ring suburb status of Roseville. Commissioner Boerigter noted that these were still large lots supportive and may even increase their property values. Commissioner Boerigter sought neighborhood consensus that Mr. Mueller be given the benefit of the doubt regarding his intent to work with staff, preserve trees, and provide four (4) nice homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Boerigter spoke of the common appreciation of neighbors for neighborhood. Chair Traynor concurred that Commissioner Boerigter made several good points, and that the PUD process provided the City with more authority and ability to impose conditions. Mr. Paschke noted that requirements were limited without a subdivision approval process. Commissioner Doherty spoke in support of the proposal, concurring with the rationale and comments of Commissioner Boerigter; and noted the many similar instances where the neighborhood prefers to keep things as intent to develop the properties with the utmost care; and that Mr. Mueller had the right to develop his private property as long as the proposal met City standards and code requirements. Commissioner Bakeman spoke in support of the proposal, while recognizing the concerns of the neighborhood, and expressed her intent to impose additional conditions on the PUD to ensure that the City Council took them into consideration. Commissioner Bakeman noted that the proposal, as modified from the original Sketch Plan, was a with the width of the roadway, she was convinced the development would work. Commissioner Wozniak spoke in support of the proposal, concurring with his colleagues, while understanding neighborhood concerns, and expressing his faith in Mr. Mueller to remain a good neighbor in the area, and create minimal impacts. Commissioner Wozniak opined that the only impact on property values would be based on current economics, and may actually increase values on adjacent lots. MOTION [7.1]: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Doherty, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the PRELIMINARY PLAT, creating four (4) single-family lots and a private road. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 (Traynor) Motion carried. MOTION [7.2]: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Doherty, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the REZONING from R-1, Single-family Residence District to Planned Unit Development with an underlying zoning of R-1. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 (Traynor) Motion carried. MOTION [7.3]: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Wozniak, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, subject to the conditions stipulated in Section 6.3 of the project report dated September 6, 2006; and amended to include conditions that an Association public comment, (i.e., care and maintenance of the private roadway; storm water management; refuse hauling; snow removal and storage); and incorporation of a tree preservation and tree replacement plan into the PUD, with staff providing direction to the developer as to parking restrictions on the private roadway to ensure emergency and maintenance vehicle access and maneuverability. 4 of 102/6/2007 11.15