pf_03791 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Excerpts of the DRAFT November 1, 2006 Roseville Planning Commission meeting Mr. Paschke advised that staff supported the preliminary plans as submitted, and foliowing careful and detailed review; however, noted that no final plats or plans had been presented or approved at this time. Mr. Paschke noted that the City's review process by applicable departments and personnel had been provided; and a review of City Code currently in force, with direct correlation that requirements had been met. Mr. Boryczki questioned which grading plan, "A" or "B," would be used. Mr. Paschke advised that, at this time, the plans were conceptual (Preliminary) in nature, and the applicant would be required to provide a final drainage plan to meet all requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District, and City Code; and that the final grading plan may be a combination of both, one or none of those submitted, depending on additional findings and review. Mr. Paschke reiterated that the Pianning Commission was reviewing a Preliminary Plat in a conceptual proposal. Mr. Boryczki expressed concern with the proposed curbing indicated, and questioned water ru n-off. Ms. Bloom reiterated her statement that, as a condition of approval, the applicant would need to meet storm water management requirements; and that the final information had yet to be completed by the applicanYs engineer, and presented to staff for review and approval. Mr. Boryczki continued to dispute details of the proposed plat, including how the homes would be addressed and his presentation of the preliminary plat to the U.S. Postmaster. Mr. Paschke reminded Commissioners, and the public, that under City Code, the City issued addresses within the City, and that the Post Office was not the enforcement mechanism for approval. Mr. Paschke noted that, when the individual homes were located on the lot, through the building permit process, staff would then identify the addresses. Mr. Boryczki had further questions on the grading plans, grade changes, location of homes, curbing, and other details. Chair Traynor reminded Mr. Broyczki that the Commission was not deciding the fine points in the process at this time. Paul Romanowski, 2195 Acorn Road Mr. Romanowski advised that he had originally purchased his home due to the low density of the neighborhood. Mr. Romanowski performed his own estimate of the number of trees he determined would need to be removed; and opined that the entire area would "look like a war zone and ruin the entire situation." Mr. Romanowski presented a petition signed by numerous neighbors, stating," We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Roseville, hereby petition our City to place a moratorium on the subdivision/platting/rezoning of the following described are of Roseville: that area bounded on the west by Highway 280, on the north by Highway 36, on the east by Cleveland Avenue, and on the south by County Road B. Our reasons for requesting this moratorium are attached;" with the petition and attachment, attached hereto and made a part thereof. James Kilau, 2225 Acorn Road Mr. Kilau advised that he lived adjacent to the property under consideration; spoke to the uniqueness of the property; discussed the width of Acorn Road; and his perceptions that density would not increase in the area. Mr. Kilau expressed his disappointment with the proposed development, threatened to leave the neighborhood if development continued, and questioned what would happen to the value of area homes. Mr. Kilau questioned why staff, Commissioner and CitV Council time continued to be wasted, followinq the Citv Council's