My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_0911_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_0911_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 3:30:18 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:38:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
158
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
My primary areas of concern with this project are: <br />1. Twin Ho�ne/Quad Homes, Bob Moser stated at the July 27,2006 neighborhood <br />meeting, that the Twin and Quad units would be developed in partnership with the <br />HRA. Price points for these units would be Z00-250�.. <br />This contradicts staffs report that the T�win/Quad units will be marlceted toward <br />"empty nesters" <br />The Twin/Q�ad component of the redevelopment could be dropped, replacing the <br />six units with three single family units at much higher price points. Loolc to the <br />single family development at Oa.kcrest and Haml�zae, three of the SF homes sold <br />for over well over $S�OK and one sold for $489IC. <br />If Roseville pursues this higher level of density, within established low density <br />neighborhoods, and contrary to its long range plan. How then, will the city deter <br />someone from applying the same standards, given to the Mounds View site, to <br />their property? The property I own at 2932 Hamline is about 43,SOOs�, just short <br />of an acre. I could develop 6 Town Home units with price points of 350-400K. <br />Would this be good for Roseville? <br />If the Twin/�uad component must be retained, at the very least it should be shifted <br />to the western edge of the site where it would abut two existing twin homes. <br />2. At the May 30,2006 neighborhood meeting, Bob Moser stated that the single <br />family component of the development would meet all established setbacic <br />requirements. This is not the case with the plat before you. <br />Staffs report states that "the proposal contains lot sizes and uses that are no <br />different than those within the surrounding community." Lot setbacics for this <br />proposal have been reduced to accommodate the higher density. Front yard <br />setbacics for the single family homes have been reduced from 30ft to 25�. The <br />twin homes front yard setbacics have been reduced from 3Q� to 22�. This is of <br />great concern for safety, at the intersection of Lydia and Haz�r��ine. Side yard <br />setbacics for all units have been reduced from 1�} to Sft. These reduced setbacics <br />are not at all "consistent" with the "surrounding area." <br />3. The water table in this area is quite high. The units or lots that are placed along <br />I�a.��i�.e will very lilcely have to be "filled" thus raising the overall height of the <br />structures. What will the finished "Pealc" elevation above the current established <br />grade be? <br />4. With the redevelopment of the Ha�lxne Shopping center site, does Roseville need <br />more senior housing (�win/quad homes) in this area? <br />5. This developments density C character, contradicts the report prepared in May o f <br />2005 by the HRA titled, "Community Dialo�ues on Housiz�g". <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.