Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, March 02, 2011 <br />Page 7 <br />development appeared to work or if there were any obvious issues, limiting their review to <br />304 <br />what could be legally required of a development, and based on staff’s detailed analysis <br />305 <br />and recommendations. <br />306 <br />City Engineer Deb Bloom <br />307 <br />Ms. Bloom concurred with Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Paschke in staff’s review of existing <br />308 <br />infrastructure and those needed as part of that plat review process. Ms. Bloom noted that <br />309 <br />that review included whether there were adequate streets, whether the lots met frontage <br />310 <br />requirements, proposed street widths, and proposed radii of any cul-de-sacs. Ms. Bloom <br />311 <br />advised that, after that review and prior to development, a Public Improvement Contract <br />312 <br />would be negotiated between the developer and the City prior to FINAL PLAT <br />313 <br />consideration and approval by the City Council. Ms. Bloom highlighted some of those <br />314 <br />areas of review, including property addresses; emergency vehicle signage; and whether <br />315 <br />the existing sanitary sewer system’s capacity could accommodate the development. <br />316 <br />Sanitary Sewer <br />317 <br />Ms. Bloom advised that there was an existing lift station on Josephine Road and that, <br />318 <br />pending final capacity calculations, it was thought to be adequate, but that the Public <br />319 <br />Improvement Contract would address that issue. <br />320 <br />Water Main <br />321 <br />Ms. Bloom advised that an extension to loop the line would be required. <br />322 <br />Storm Water Management <br />323 <br />Ms. Bloom noted that the area was now only a large open space, but that the <br />324 <br />development would require a permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) <br />325 <br />who had already reviewed the proposed development and its location and relevance to <br />326 <br />three existing wetlands on the development site. Ms. Bloom advised that those existing <br />327 <br />systems received some stormwater from the existing, undeveloped site, and were also <br />328 <br />connected to Ramsey County Open Space on the east side. <br />329 <br />Ms. Bloom advised that, under current regulations, runoff from a site could not increase, <br />330 <br />requiring volume reduction and infiltration reduction mitigation, as regulated and <br />331 <br />permitted by the RCWD. Ms. Bloom noted the existing homes on Fernwood and <br />332 <br />Josephine Road, and overland emergency storm water flows in place for more than six <br />333 <br />inches (6”) of rain within twenty-four (24) hours, and pone installation needed to <br />334 <br />accommodate any additional runoff, that would be accomplished by the developer <br />335 <br />through a series of infiltration basins to meet those requirements; and an overland flow <br />336 <br />established on Block 2 to avoid any damage to other homes during extreme rain events. <br />337 <br />Pathways <br />338 <br />Ms. Bloom advised that the City’s Pathway Master Plan provided for a connection along <br />339 <br />County Road C2 for the entire length of the plat; and that the developer’s provision for a <br />340 <br />pedestrian/bicycle connection was consistent with that Master Plan, and that the <br />341 <br />proposed pathway connected to Lexington Avenue and Josephine Road, and would be <br />342 <br />part of the dedication required of the developer. <br />343 <br />Vehicular Traffic <br />344 <br />Ms. Bloom provided extensive comment on the existing and proposed traffic conditions, <br />345 <br />and traffic studies related to this area and the proposed development. Ms. Bloom noted <br />346 <br />that County Road C2 was a City street, and had never been connected; and further noted <br />347 <br />that when George Reiling developed the housing complex that included the Lexington <br />348 <br />Apartment complex and other housing units in 1998, County Road C2 dead-ended and <br />349 <br />there was no cul-de-sac in existence. Ms. Bloom advised that staff’s research had <br />350 <br />indicated that there was an initial proposal in 1988 to connect County Road C2, but that it <br />351 <br />had not been well-received by the neighborhood; thus causing plans to be redrawn and <br />352 <br />accesses revised for the apartment complex and some single-family homes. Ms. Bloom <br />353 <br />noted that there was a discussion and motion before the City Council at that time to <br />354 <br />vacate the County Road C2 right-of-way, but that it had failed as the elected officials <br />355 <br />wanted to preserve the ability to construct it in the future. <br />356 <br /> <br />