2011-03-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 02, 2011 Page 19 family homeowner paid approximately $20 per year as a flat rate; and that 919 commercial/industrial properties paid based on the size of their site. 920 Ms. Bloom advised that there were some exceptions where residents served by a newly- 921 constructed stormwater pond contributed to its maintenance rather than the whole 922 community (e.g. Applewood Point) when a public/private partnership was negotiated with 923 the City providing heavy maintenance, and the private developer providing aesthetic 924 amenities above and beyond the basic and average pond maintenance and depreciation. 925 In addressing runoff from city streets, Ms. Bloom noted that the streets were public, and 926 not restricted to the private development, and that every drop of water drained into the 927 pond and served a public purpose. Ms. Bloom noted that, when homeowners took on that 928 maintenance themselves, the City developed partnerships in addressing maintenance. 929 Ms. Bloom noted that there were some private hydrants that were not currently being 930 exercised, and that the City Council and Public Works Department needed to make 931 decisions to ensure long-term operations and safety of its residents. 932 MOTION 933 Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Best to RECOMMEND approval of 934 the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT of the property in the northwest corner of 935 Lexington Avenue and County Road C2; based on the comments and findings of 936 Sections 4-6 and the conditions of Section 7 of the Request for Planning 937 Commission Action dated March 2, 2011. 938 Member Wozniak opined that this was a good proposal, and spoke in support of pathway 939 connections. Member Wozniak further opined that there appeared to be no reason to 940 make the proposal contingent upon opening County Road C2; and that he was not 941 convinced that the projected additional traffic from the development required such a 942 measure. Member Wozniak expressed appreciation that the development was designed 943 to take any potential opening of County Road C2 into consideration. Member Wozniak 944 opined that if additional development on the east side of Lexington Avenue occurred of 945 Medium Density Residential (MDR) or higher, further consideration into opening County 946 Road C2 may be needed; in addition to additional traffic calming mitigation following the 947 concerns expressed during public comment tonight. Member Wozniak spoke in support 948 of the proposed development. 949 Member Gisselquist expressed appreciation for the confidence displayed in the Roseville 950 community by Pulte Homes. Member Gisselquist opined that he didn’t anticipate 951 residential development in the community at this time, but was pleased to see it. Member 952 Gisselquist expressed his appreciation of the new tree preservation ordinance and the 953 developer’s compliance with it. Member Gisselquist noted that he had come into tonight’s 954 meeting with the impression that it may be necessary to look at opening County Road 955 C2; however, while hearing good arguments on both sides, it appeared that the issue had 956 been sufficiently debated in the past, and he saw no new evidence that opening it would 957 alleviate traffic flows or the development, and may in fact create more problems. Member 958 Gisselquist opined that lack of a signal on Lexington Avenue and County Road C2 may 959 create another problem, but could be addressed in the future if so evidenced. Member 960 Gisselquist opined that it was good that the City retained the right-of-way and did not 961 previously vacate it. Member Gisselquist opined that this was a sound proposal and 962 spoke in support of it. 963 Member Wozniak opined that his only concern with the proposal was its storm water 964 management plan, but he understood that it was the responsibility of the City’s Public 965 Works Department staff and the RCWD. Member Wozniak opined that he was not 966 convinced that current modeling was adequate to address current climate conditions; and 967 encouraged the RCWD to consider additional mitigation measures above and beyond 968 current models to manage storm water in this development, expressing his preference 969 that the storm water plans not fail. 970 Member Gottfried spoke in support of the project, opining that it appeared to be well 971 thought out. Member Gottfried opined that there were lessons to be learned from 972